Roof extension with rear projecting dormer and rooflights to front roof slope to convert attic space into a habitable room

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 March 2023 by Victor Callister BA(Hons) PGC(Oxon) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 April 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/E5330/D/22/3309722 29 Ridge Close, Thamesmead, Greenwich SE28 0HX • 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 Wasif Navil against the decision of the Royal Borough of Greenwich Council. • The application Ref 22/2020/HD, dated 11 June 2022, was refused by notice dated 8 August 2022. • The development proposed is a roof extension with rear projecting dormer and rooflights to front roof slope to convert attic space into a habitable room. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a roof extension with rear projecting dormer and rooflights to front roof slope to convert attic space into a habitable room at 29 Ridge Close, Thamesmead, Greenwich SE28 0HX, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 22/2020/HD, dated 11 June 2022, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: PL1.Rev A, PL.2 Rev A, PL.3 Rev A, PL.4 Rev A, PL.5 Rev A, PL.6 Rev A, PL.7 Rev A, PL.8 Rev A, PL.10 Rev A, PL.11 Rev A, PL.13 rev A and PL.14 Rev A 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) The window to the bathroom in the dormer extension hereby permitted shall at all times be glazed with obscured glass and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor shall be capable of being opened. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and that of the local area. Reasons 3. The appeal dwelling is a three storey terraced town house with a front garden with car parking space and a rear garden backing onto a pedestrian access lane. It is located on the edge of a planned housing development made up of Appeal Decision APP/E5330/D/22/3309722 2 similar traditionally designed terraced and semi-detached houses and faces towards Gallion’s Park, a green space with mature trees. 4. The Council have imposed a condition on the planning approval for the housing development of which the appeal property forms part, which restricts permitted development rights for extensions of the type proposed. However, notwithstanding that there may be a restriction to permitted development in place, the proposal before me is by way of an application for planning permission. 5. The roof of the terrace of which the appeal property forms part is a single roof form, with no expression of individual roofs for the separate houses that make up the terrace. The proposal is for a loft conversion that incorporates a rear tile hung dormer extension, a roof light to the rear roof slope and 2 roof lights to the front roof slope. The proposed rear roof dormer would take the form of 2 conjoined traditionally formed dormer windows with pitched roofs. This rear dormer extension would be positioned towards the centre of the appeal dwelling and would be narrower than the appeal dwelling. It would also be set well down from the roof ridge and up from the roof edge. 6. The design of the proposed dormer extension as 2 conjoined shallow pitched roofed dormer windows has the effect of breaking down its apparent scale and would hip with the existing roof slope. This design approach would lead to the apparent scale of the proposed dormer extension complimenting the scale of the appeal property. 7. Whilst the proposed dormer would be a stand-alone addition to the rear roof slope of the terrace, it would be clad in complimentary tiling to match the existing roof slope and would appear to be detailed and of a scale that would result in it appearing as a subordinate addition to the appeal dwelling. Likewise, the proposed roof lights to the front and rear roof slopes would be small in scale, with a minimal visual presence and would be complimentary additions to the appeal dwelling. As such the proposal as a whole would accord with the design guidance set out in the Royal Borough of Greenwich Residential Extensions, Basements and Conversions Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2018) 8. From my site visit it was apparent that there are other similarly scaled and formed rear roof dormer extensions in the wider local area. The Council’s officer report for the planning application indicates that the dormer window extensions in the immediate local area, on the rear roof slope of the semi- detached house at 11 Bluebird Way, which are visible from the rear garden of the appeal dwelling, are considered by the Council to be unlawful as they appear to the Council to be larger than granted planning permission1. 9. However, no further details have been provided by the Council on this matter and I can only afford this limited weight in my considerations. As such, the proposal would be read in this existing context and would not appear as a top heavy or discordant addition to the appeal property and would accord with the local character and streetscene of traditionally formed terraced town houses and semi-detached dwellings. 1 Planning Ref:19/1554/HD Appeal Decision APP/E5330/D/22/3309722 3 10. For these reasons, I find that the proposal would not result in any significant harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling, or that of the local area. Conditions 11. Along with the standard condition relating to the timing of implementation, I have attached conditions to ensure design quality, which along with the required compliance with the approved drawings, further require that the materials used for the proposal match those of the appeal dwelling. To protect privacy, I have also imposed a condition relating to the glazing to the bathroom window in the dormer extension. Conclusion 12. The appeal is allowed. Victor Callister INSPECTOR