Erection of a rear loft dormer for the conversion of the loft space into habitable space

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 June 2026 by J Davis BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:15 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008344 29 Coniston Road, Tottenham, Haringey, London, N17 0EX • 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 Soomary against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Haringey. • The application Ref is HGY/2025/3014. • The development proposed is the erection of a rear loft dormer for the conversion of the loft space into habitable space. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a rear loft dormer for the conversion of the loft space into habitable space at 29 Coniston Road, Tottenham, Haringey, London, N17 0EX in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: HGY/2025/3014, 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 materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: PR-L001; PR-P001; PR-P002; PR-P003; PR-P004; PR-E001; PR-E002; PR- S001; PR-3D. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property, the wider terrace and surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal relates to a two-storey, mid-terrace dwelling, located in a row of similar properties. It has a deep outrigger to the rear which is attached to a similar projection to the rear of 27 Coniston Road. 4. The Council issued a Certificate of Lawfulness (LPA ref. HGY/2025/2537) for an outrigger roof extension at the property in November 2025. The Council’s main concern is that the proposed development in combination with the outrigger Appeal Decision 6008344 2 extension already deemed lawful, would result in an overly dominant and excessively bulky L- shaped roof form, which they consider would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the wider terrace and the area. 5. At my site visit I observed that no work had commenced in relation to the outrigger extension. There is no indication or certainly that it is the appellant’s intention to construct an outrigger extension or indeed whether it could be physically constructed in combination with the appeal proposal. In any event, the proposal before me is for a dormer positioned on the main rear roof slope of the dwelling which I am required to determine on its own merits. 6. The proposed dormer would be set in 300mm from both side elevations and also set 300mm up from the eaves. It would have a flat roof design and would be constructed in matching materials. Whilst it would be a dominant feature of the main roof slope, it would be viewed in association with the deep two storey outrigger to the rear and would not overly dominate or detract from the rear elevation of the host dwelling or the wider terrace. Two small rooflights are proposed on the front elevation close to the ridge and would not be overly prominent in the street scene. 7. Whilst I could not see evidence of any other similar dormers on adjoining properties, dormers do nonetheless feature in the surrounding area and the proposal would not be out of character in this regard. Moreover, the development would only be visible from neighbouring properties and the properties to the rear and would not be visible from the street or other public vantage points. 8. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property, the wider terrace and surrounding area. Accordingly, I find it to be compliant with Policies DM1 and DM12 of the Haringey Development Management Plan Document (2017) and Policy SP11 of Haringey’s Local Plan Strategic Policies (2017). Collectively, and amongst other things, these policies require that all new development, including extensions, must achieve a high standard of design and contribute to local context and the distinctive character and amenity of the local area. Conditions 9. In addition to the standard implementation condition, the approved plans condition is imposed for certainty. A condition controlling the use of materials is necessary to protect the character and appearance of the dwelling and the local area. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. J Davis INSPECTOR