Described on the application form thus “The proposal raises the ridge height of the property by 600mm along with the addition of a rear dormer” Decision

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 December 2024 by S Poole BA(Hons) DipArch MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 December 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/G5750/D/24/3351026 347 Manor Road, Stratford, London E15 3AN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Amy Ferguson against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Newham. • The application Ref is 24/00888/HH. • The development proposed is described on the application form thus “The proposal raises the ridge height of the property by 600mm along with the addition of a rear dormer” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached house that has been extended to the side and rear and has a relatively shallow pitched roof. It forms part of a group of semi-detached and terraced houses of similar age, form and height that front onto Manor Road and the neighbouring streets. Key characteristics of this group of houses are the shallow roof forms, regular ridge levels and absence of dormer additions. 4. The proposal would comprise the formation of a roof addition with a dormer within the rear roof slope. This would provide a pair of double bedrooms and an en-suite. To accommodate this the ridge and front eaves would be raised to levels that would be noticeably higher than the ridge and eaves of the attached neighbouring house and the neighbouring terrace. These changes would result in an ungainly roof form that would be an overly prominent and incongruous element in the street scene. 5. The dormer would occupy the vast majority of the rear roof slope, extend above existing ridge level and create a large expanse of flat roof. In this location, which is notable for an absence of roof level additions, this constitutes an unsympathetic and disproportionate addition that would be out of keeping with the prevailing roof forms in the area. Appeal Decision APP/G5750/D/24/3351026 2 6. Due to its siting, size and bulk I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the host building and the surrounding area. As such it is contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) (LP) and Policies SP1 and SP3 of the London Borough of Newham’s Local Plan (2018) (NLP). Amongst other matters these policies require high quality development that enhances local context, delivering buildings and spaces that positively respond to local distinctiveness. The proposal also fails to accord with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) and the Council’s Altering and Extending Your Home, Supplementary Planning Document (2018). 7. The Council’s reason for refusal refers to LP Policies D1 and D4 and NLP Policy SP8. These do not directly relate to the matters before me. Consequently, there is no conflict with these policies. Conclusion 8. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail. S Poole INSPECTOR