Single storey rear extension, rear dormer extension and hip to gable roof alterations
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Extensions
Character & Appearance
Residential Amenity
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 18 July 2023
by G Powys Jones MSc FRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 09 August 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/L5240/D/23/3320626
7 Sylvan Close, South Croydon, CR2 8DS
• 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 Ms Nagla Stevens against the decision of the Council of the
London Borough of Croydon.
• The application Ref 22/05051/HSE, dated 5 December 2022, was refused by notice
dated 16 February 2023.
• The development is single storey rear extension, rear dormer extension and hip to gable
roof alterations.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear
extension, rear dormer extension and hip to gable roof alterations at 7 Sylvan
Close, South Croydon, CR2 8DS in accordance with the terms of the
application, Ref 22/05051/HSE, dated 5 December 2022, subject to the
conditions set out in the attached Schedule.
Procedural matters
2. Since it more accurately describes the development, the description provided in
the Council’s decision notice has been utilized in preference to that in the
application form.
3. The works involved in altering and extending the roof are substantially
complete. However, I note that since the submission of this appeal the Council
has granted a Certificate of Lawfulness1 for these works namely: ‘Hip to gable
loft conversion, erection of rear dormer and installation of one rooflight on the
front roofslope following demolition of existing dormers. Alterations of
fenestration. This ranks as a material consideration in my determination
attracting substantial weight.
4. I note that the Council did not object to the single storey ground floor
extension. A full assessment of this aspect of the proposal is provided in the
officer report. I have no reason to disagree with the views expressed in the
officer report or the conclusions reached.
Main issue
5. The main issue is the effect of the alterations and additions to the roof on the
character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.
1 Ref 23/01543/LE dated 15 June 2023 granted on the basis that the works comprised permitted development.
Appeal Decision APP/L5240/D/23/3320626
2
Reasons
6. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling, being one of several similarly
designed pairs in this quiet cul-de-sac. The alterations to the roof are not
particularly noticeable given the property’s secluded position at the end of one
of the cul-de-sac’s two arms. Additionally, that part of the roof subject to
change is screened to a significant extent by the branches and leaves of a
copper beech growing in the street outside. To my mind, the development has
had very little impact on either the host property or its surroundings when
viewed from the public realm.
7. I therefore conclude that the development, as built, taking account of the
permitted development rights accruing, as acknowledged formally by the
Council, has not materially or harmfully affected the character and appearance
of the host property or its surroundings. Accordingly, I find no conflict with the
thrust of those provisions of policies SP4 and DM10 Croydon Local Plan policy
DM10, directed to achieving high quality design and respecting local character
or the objectives of policy D3 of the London Plan directed to optimising site
capacity through the design-led approach.
Conditions
8. The Council’s suggested conditions regarding the date of commencement,
materials, and that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved plans do not take account of the fact that most of the development is
substantially complete. They are not therefore necessary in the form
presented, but amended versions of two of the suggested conditions shall be
imposed in the interests of certainty and amenity.
9. The appellant did not submit a Fire Safety Strategy with the original
application, but the Council considered that this could be subject of a condition
were planning permission granted. To ensure compliance with Policy D12 of
the London Plan (LP), a condition is imposed in the interests of safety. It is an
amended version of that suggested by the Council, taking account of the
comments made by the appellant in the grounds of appeal.
10. To safeguard neighbouring privacy, the condition suggested by the Council in
respect of the loft’s side window is imposed.
Other matters
11. All other matters referred to in the representations, including the comments
made by a neighbouring resident have been taken into consideration. This has
been addressed by the imposition of the condition designed to safeguard
neighbouring privacy.
12. No other matter is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the
considerations that led me to my conclusions.
G Powys Jones
INSPECTOR
Appeal Decision APP/L5240/D/23/3320626
3
Schedule of Conditions
1. 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.
2. The development hereby permitted shall be completed in accordance with
the following approved plans: NS/OS11; NS/P1; NS/P2; NS/P3 & NS/P4.
3. Within 2 months of the date of this permission, a Reasonable Exception
Statement which outlines that the proposed development will not alter the
fire safety of the building, or a Planning Fire Safety Strategy in the event
that the fire safety of the building will be altered, shall be submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall
be completed strictly in accordance with the details thus approved.
4. The side facing loft window shown on Drawing Number NS/P3 shall be
obscurely-glazed, and non-opening unless the parts of the window which
can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor taken from a point
immediately below the centre of the window upwards to the opening part of
the window. Such measures shall be provided within 2 months of the date
of this permission, and thereafter retained for the lifetime of the
development.
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.