Upper floor dormer window extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 October 2019 by Emma Worby BSc (Hons) by Andrew Owen BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14th November 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/B5480/D/19/3232026 16 Thorncroft, Hornchurch, RM11 1EU • 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 Mrs Navjot Grewal against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref P0190.19, dated 7 February 2019, was refused by notice dated 4 April 2019. • The development proposed is an upper floor dormer window extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeals Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal property is a semi-detached two-storey dwellinghouse with a single storey rear extension. Within the surrounding area are other similar semi- detached dwellings, as well as detached two-storey dwellings and detached bungalows, all with a varied appearance. The appeal proposal seeks to create a larger dormer at first floor level above the existing single storey extension. From a previous planning application, the proposal has been reduced in depth and a pitched roof has been replaced with a flat roof. 5. The proposed development would not be visible within the Thorncroft streetscene. However, it would be visible from the gardens of neighbouring properties on Thorncroft and to some extent from the properties on Cranham Road to the rear of the appeal site. Although the proposal has been reduced in size, the extension to the dormer would still be a dominant addition to the rear of the property which would appear out of keeping with the attached neighbouring property and other similar semi-detached pairs of dwellings within the locality. The proposed development would be an incongruous feature on the rear of the dwelling. Appeal Decision APP/B5480/D/19/3232026 2 6. It is noted that the appellant has mentioned a recent rear extension to a neighbouring property which has altered the rear garden environment. However, from my site visit, I do not consider that this has any bearing upon the appeal before me. Another similar type of development within Hornchurch, which has been granted planning permission, has also been raised by the appellant. However the particular circumstances of this case, including its context, have not been provided and may be different from those within this appeal. Furthermore, this precedent would not outweigh the harm caused by the proposed development which has been identified above. 7. For the reasons above I consider that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and therefore would be contrary to policy DC61 of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document (2008) which seeks to ensure development maintains, enhances or improves the character and appearance of the local area. The proposed development would also be contrary to the general design principles of the Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD (2011) and although these are only guidelines, I have not found any particular circumstances which would outweigh the guidance contained within this document. Conclusions and Recommendation 8. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal is dismissed. Emma Worby APPEALS PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 9. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Andrew Owen INSPECTOR