Proposed development is described as “retrospective application for a single storey and first floor rear extension, hip to gable side roof extension with a dormer roof extension to main rear roof, together with installation of three roof lights to front roof slope and formation of openings at side roof elevation to facilitate the installation of two windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 February 2026 by Lucy Cuthbertson BSc Decision by T Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15th May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002197 189 Winns Avenue, Waltham Forest, Walthamstow E17 5HB • 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 Sandra Genth against the decision of Waltham Forest London Borough Council. • The application Ref is 251792. • The proposed development is described as “retrospective application for a single storey and first floor rear extension, hip to gable side roof extension with a dormer roof extension to main rear roof, together with installation of three roof lights to front roof slope and formation of openings at side roof elevation to facilitate the installation of two windows”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal property is an end of terraced dwelling located on a prominent corner plot located on the junction with Holmes Road. The terrace displays a distinct and coherent pattern of roof heights, arranged in pairs where each pair shares the same ridge level, before stepping up or down to the next pair. This repeating rhythm along the street contributes significantly to the character and visual consistency of the street scene. 5. The development subject to this appeal was not constructed in accordance with the schemes previously approved under prior approval or planning permissions. In particular, the appellant has raised the height of the main roof ridge by approximately 232mm. This change has enabled the hip-to-gable conversion and the rear dormer roof extension to be built at a materially higher level and to a greater bulk than was originally permitted. 6. The increase in the ridge height is clearly visible from the public realm and interrupts the established and harmonious arrangement of roof heights along the Appeal Planning Officer 6002197 2 terrace. The resulting step in the roofline appears abrupt and uncharacteristic, undermining the consistent pattern that defines the surrounding roofscape. The property’s corner position further heightens its exposure within the wider street scene, increasing the harmful visual impact of the alteration. 7. Together these alterations result in an overbearing massing that is disproportionate to the original dwelling. The combined effects of the raised ridge, gable end, enlarged dormer and altered first-floor extension creates a top heavy and bulky form which harms the character and appearance of both the host dwelling and wider area. 8. The development fails to respect the scale, form, and proportions of the original building and disrupts the coherence of the wider terrace. The resulting structure is unduly dominant and discordant, causing demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of both the host property and the surrounding area. Accordingly, the development conflicts with Policy 53 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan Part 1 (2024) and Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2010), which prioritise high quality design that enhances and is in keeping with the character of the area. Conclusion and Recommendation 9. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Lucy Cuthbertson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 10. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. T Law INSPECTOR