Conversion and reconfiguration of existing roof space to form two additional bedrooms. The need for an additional staircase means that the small existing box room will be used for this purpose. There will be a rear extension. The existing hip roof will become a gable type alteration. The new front bedroom and shower room will have three new rooflights projecting no more than 150mm from the plane of the roof tiles

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 March 2025 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 March 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/U5930/D/24/3351760 2 St Egberts Way, Chingford, Waltham Forest, E4 6QH • 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 Mrs Natalia Gasper against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Waltham Forest. • The application Ref is 240934. • The development proposed is conversion and reconfiguration of existing roof space to form two additional bedrooms. The need for an additional staircase means that the small existing box room will be used for this purpose. There will be a rear extension. The existing hip roof will become a gable type alteration. The new front bedroom and shower room will have three new rooflights projecting no more than 150mm from the plane of the roof tiles. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The description of development is taken from the application form. The Council, in its decision notice, described the development as “construction of a hip to gable side roof extension and dormer roof extension to main rear roof, together with installation of three roof lights to front roof slope.” Main Issues 3. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and whether it would provide for acceptable living conditions for future occupiers having regards to daylight, outlook and internal and external amenity space. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached house constructed from brick and tile. Like its attached neighbour, the dwelling has a projecting front porch and is set back from the road behind a parking area. Again, like its attached neighbour, the dwelling has a low hipped roof and a small L-shaped garden area to the side and rear of the dwelling. 5. The appeal property is located in a residential area which is characterised by the presence of two, two and a half, and three storey residential buildings, comprising flatted, terraced and semi-detached dwellings. Dwellings tend to be set back a Appeal Decision APP/U5930/D/24/3351760 2 small distance from the street behind garden areas or short driveways and are commonly brick-built with tiled roofs. 6. Whilst dwellings range in height, the common use of brick and tiles and the presence of small clusters of very similarly designed dwellings gives rise to an attractive sense of uniformity. This sense of uniformity is enhanced by a roofscape that retains the original style of roofs. Further, the presence of gaps between groups of dwellings of similar design provides for a sense of spaciousness within what is a densely developed area. 7. The appeal dwelling and the attached dwelling, Number 4 St Egberts Way, are very similar in appearance and as such, they present a distinctive sense of symmetry to St Egberts Way and contribute to the area’s uniform qualities. 8. The proposed development would change the appeal dwelling’s hipped roof to a gable roof and would add a dormer to the rear roofslope. I find that this would severely unbalance the symmetry between the appeal dwelling and its attached neighbour, to the detriment of the area’s uniform qualities. 9. Further to the above, the proposed dormer would draw attention to itself as a large and bulky addition. It would be set close to the edge of an enlarged roof, and I find that this would exacerbate its bulkiness and result in the roof extension as a whole to appear as an unduly dominant addition that would not appear as subordinate to the host dwelling. 10. The harm arising from the above would be exacerbated as a result of the proposed changes to the roof being highly visible from St Egberts Way. 11. Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy 53 of the Local Plan1; and to the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2010), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Living conditions 12. The proposed development would result in the creation of a fourth bedroom. Whilst this would only have a small window to the side and two rooflights, I find that this would provide sufficient daylight for a bedroom and would do so in a manner that would not be uncommon or unusual for a bedroom located in an extended roof space. 13. Whilst the Council, in its reasons for refusal, states that the proposed development would result in inadequate internal space, but it provides little in the way of substantive information in support of this contention. In this regard, I note that the proposal would provide for internal living space. 14. The appeal dwelling has some external private amenity space. Whilst the garden space is small, it extends to the front and side and further, there is access to private external space to the front of the dwelling, in addition to the dwelling’s parking space. Given this and the absence of substantive information supporting the Council’s position, I find that that the proposed development would provide for acceptable living conditions for future occupiers having regards to daylight, outlook 1 Waltham Forest Local Plan Part 1 (2024). Appeal Decision APP/U5930/D/24/3351760 3 and internal and external amenity space and would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; or to Policy 56 of the Local Plan, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity. 15. However, the absence of harm in this respect does not reduce or mitigate against the significant harm to local character and hence the conclusion below. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed. N McGurk INSPECTOR