Construction of a loft conversion with a rear dormer including an increase in the existing roof height

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 June 2019 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 July 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/D/19/3226698 29 The Chantry, Uxbridge, UB8 3RA • 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 Tony Hassell against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon. • The application Ref 2689/APP/2018/4388, dated 17 December 2018, was refused by notice dated 8 February 2019. • The development proposed is the construction of a loft conversion with a rear dormer including an increase in the existing roof height. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a loft conversion with a rear dormer including an increase in the existing roof height at 29 The Chantry, Uxbridge, UB8 3RA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2689/APP/2018/4388, dated 17 December 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drg Nos 29 TCL/P1/01, 29 TCL/P1/02, 29 TCL/P1/03, 29 TCL/P1/04 A, 29 TCL/P1/05, and 29 TCL/P1/06 A. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached, two-storey dwelling set amongst a linear row of similar type properties but of different designs within a residential cul- de-sac. No 29 has a hipped roof with a staggered cat-slide to the front Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/19/3226698 2 stepping out over a central, small two-storey projection incorporating the stair- well, and further still over a forward projecting integral garage to one side. The proposal is to convert the existing loft space into additional living accommodation with a rear dormer window, including raising the ridge height of the roof and eaves heights to the side and rear elevations. 4. Section 7 of the Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement (HDAS) Supplementary Planning Document - Residential Extensions (2008) deals with loft conversions and roof alterations. It states that careful thought must be given to the volume, height, proportion, details, position and overall appearance of any dormer window. It advises that a dormer window must be constructed in the centre of the roof face but recognises that the size of each roof face will vary from one house to the next. As a guide, it states that on detached dwellings a dormer should be set down from the ridge of the original roof by at least 1.0m, set up from the eaves by 1.0m and set in from each side of the roof face by 1.0m. 5. The proposed dormer would be set up from the eaves by 0.5m and down from the ridge by 0.3m. This would fall short of the Council’s normal requirements. On the other hand, the side faces of the dormer would be set well away from the side walls of the dwelling, far in excess of the 1m requirement, but closer when measured to the apex of the hipped roof to each side. These circumstances demonstrate that the HDAS cannot foretell every situation, and why therefore the advice is as a guideline only. 6. In my assessment, the dormer would be a well related and integrated part of the dwelling’s overall design. It would sit central and comfortably framed by the roof slope on all sides, appearing secondary to the size of the roof face. It would be obviously less wide than the house and would not give the impression of an added third storey. I therefore do not agree with the Council’s assessment that it would be excessive in size, scale or bulk. Apart from strict adherence to the measurements given within the HDAS, I find that the dormer would otherwise satisfy the aims and objectives of the Council’s guidelines. 7. The ridge height of the existing dwelling would raise by 0.3m. This would not be excessive. There is no uniformity or regimentation to the pattern of development along The Chantry with clear differences in roof forms and heights between one dwelling to the next. The increased scale and height of the roof would not appear out of keeping. 8. The officer’s report points to an alleged discrepancy in the application drawings, suggesting that the raised eaves heights are not properly depicted on the front elevation. My interpretation of the proposal is that the height of the eaves to the front would not change, which would explain the cropped side hipped roof slopes that are shown on the plans. I find no fault with the drawings. Furthermore, the changes to the style of the roof would not be significant within the street scene and would merely reflect the variety of styles in the area. 9. Overall, I find that the proposed dormer would appear neither over large nor bulky in relation to the roofscape and that the changes to the roof would merely modify the appearance of the building to a form that would appear reasonably proportioned and balanced, and appropriate to the mixed character Appeal Decision APP/R5510/D/19/3226698 3 of the area. As such, I find no conflict with the aims or objectives of the HDAS and neither do I find conflict with Policy BE1 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part One -Strategic Policies (November 2012) or Policies BE13, BE15 or BE19 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Saved UDP Policies (November 2012) insofar as they all relate to the quality of design and the need for new development to complement and harmonise with the existing local context. Conditions 10. A condition specifying the relevant drawings is necessary as this provides certainty. In the interest of maintaining the character and appearance of the area it is necessary to ensure that the external materials used match the existing building. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the appeal property or the wider street scene. Accordingly, and in the absence of any other conflict with the development plan, the appeal is allowed. John D Allan INSPECTOR