Full width rear dormer to main roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 March 2019 by P. D. Biggers BSc Hons MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2nd April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/V5570/D/18/3218748 61 Parolles Road, Islington, London N19 3RE. • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Podos against the decision of the London Borough of Islington Council. • The application Ref P2018/2908/FUL, dated 25 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 20 November 2018. • The development proposed is full width rear dormer to main roof. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and of the Whitehall Park Conservation Area. Reasons 3. Parolles Road, where the appeal site is located lies within the Whitehall Park Conservation Area. The street is typical of the character of the Conservation Area and is comprised of two storey traditionally designed Victorian terraces constructed in brick with stucco detailing. Some properties at the western end of the road and in Prospero Street have traditionally-scaled front dormers indicating use of the loft space for accommodation. However the houses in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site in the main are simply 2 storeyed. 4. In respect of the proposals at No 61, whilst I accept the rear dormer would sit slightly up from the eaves and slightly down from the ridge, it would extend across the full width of the property between the party walls and would cover virtually the whole slope of the roof. Moreover a high proportion of the dormer extension would be solid wall rather than window with the result that the dormer would be a bulky, dominant structure at the top of the house which would completely obscure the characteristic sloping roof plane of the house and terrace. In addition, the window design would bear no relation to the traditional scale and pattern of the windows in the rest of the property nor would they be subordinate to or aligned with the windows of the main house below. The overall result would be to significantly harm the character and appearance of the house. 5. The proposal would therefore be in conflict with the objectives of policy DM2.1 of Islington’s Local Plan Development Management Policies 2013 (ILPDMP) Appeal Decision APP/V5570/D/18/3218748 2 which requires all development to make a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness of an area. Section A vii) of the policy requires development to respect and respond positively to existing buildings, the streetscape and the wider context. The Council has also produced the Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2017 (SPD) to guide and ensure quality development and at paragraphs 5.159-5.161 it sets out guidance for dormer roof extensions. None of these design principles would be followed in the appeal proposal and as such the proposed roof conversion and rear dormer would be contrary to both ILPDMP policy DM2.1 and SPD guidance. 6. Although I have been invited to conclude that the rear dormers at Nos 43 and 45 Parolles Road would justify a similar approach at the appeal property, No 43’s dormer was permitted before the adoption of the SPD and No 45’s dormer reportedly has no permission. In any event the prevailing character is one where the roofline to the terrace, particularly on the north side of the road, is largely unaltered and is not compromised by other extensions. Therefore to introduce a large box dormer would be out of keeping with the character of the terrace. 7. It has been put to me that as this is a rear elevation which is not visible from the public realm there should be greater flexibility to allow the proposed dormer extension and that the form and design of the extension would not harm the significance of the Conservation Area. I acknowledge that the rear of No 61 is not visible from the public realm even higher up on Cressida Road. However, neither national nor local policy qualifies the requirement to preserve or enhance conservation areas by allowing any standard of design to the rear of properties simply because it cannot be seen. Were that the case it would quickly result in the cumulative erosion of characterful terraces within the Conservation Area such as those in Parolles Road. In any event there would be inward private views of the rear of No 61 and neighbouring roofscape from adjacent rear gardens and a good number of rear windows to properties in Harberton Road. From these private viewpoints the proposed full-width dormer would appear unduly dominant and would significantly and adversely alter the attractive appearance of the roofscape along the rear elevation of the terrace in Parolles Road. 8. The addition of mass and bulk at this high level on the terrace in what is substantially an uninterrupted roofscape would therefore be harmful to the significance of this part of the Conservation Area and fail to preserve the character of the terrace. Therefore the proposal would be contrary to Paragraphs 193 and 194 in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and policies CS9 of Islington’s Core Strategy (ICS) and policy DM2.3 of the ILPDMP both of which seek to conserve and enhance the historic significance of the Borough’s unique heritage assets. 9. I accept that the harm to the significance of the heritage asset would be less than substantial and, in these circumstances, Paragraph 196 of the Framework states that the harm can be weighed against any public benefit. The appellant, in proposing the roof extension, is seeking to make sustainable and effective use of an existing dwelling, an objective which is encouraged by the Framework and I understand that the development might meet the need for increased and better configured family accommodation. However this would not be a public benefit and therefore would not outweigh the harm to the significance of the Conservation Area from the proposal. Appeal Decision APP/V5570/D/18/3218748 3 10. Moreover, I am not persuaded that the accommodation need, utilising the loft space, could not have been achieved in a different way without the need for a full width dormer thereby limiting harm to the character and appearance of the property, its surroundings and the Conservation Area. Conclusion 11. In reaching my decision I have had regard to the matters before me but for the reasons above the appeal should be dismissed. P. D. Biggers INSPECTOR