First floor side roof extension (amended application to show revised roof design)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 September 2017 by J Bell-Williamson MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 6 October 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/M1520/D/17/3177603 23 St Marys Road, South Benfleet, Benfleet SS7 1NR  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 N Mylroie against the decision of Castle Point Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/0080/FUL, dated 1 February 2017, was refused by notice dated 22 March 2017.  The development proposed is first floor side roof extension (amended application to show revised roof design). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling in a residential road of similar property types of individual design and appearance. This proposal is a resubmission following refusal of an extension in the same location (reference 16/0950/FUL). While I note this earlier application and decision, this appeal involves a separate development proposal which I have considered on its own merits. 4. Policy EC2 of the Castle Point Local Plan requires a high standard of design, including that development should be appropriate to its setting and should not harm the character of its surroundings. This policy is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly section seven concerning good design. 5. The Council’s Residential Design Guidance provides more detailed guidance. RDG2 concerns space around dwellings, stating that all new development should be informed by the prevailing character of such space. Where there is no clear pattern of development the space around a dwelling should be proportionate to the size of the dwelling, providing at least a metre gap between properties and the boundary. RDG7 addresses roof development and Appeal Decision APP/M1520/D/17/3177603 2 states that development should be compatible primarily with the dwelling, but also the prevailing character of the area. 6. The existing property has a half-hipped roof to the two storey element adjacent to the location of the proposed extension; below this the single storey garage roof forms a gable end on the boundary with a roof ridge just below the eaves of the main part of the dwelling. The proposal involves extending the garage roof with the same angled front slope to form a half-hip, the top of which would be positioned just below the same existing feature of the main roof. As such, the proposal would take its design lead from the existing roof form. Moreover, it would not add substantive bulk or mass to what is a relatively large detached dwelling. For these reasons it would comply with the guidance in RDG7 and would not cause material harm to the character or appearance of the host dwelling. 7. While there is not a strong degree of uniformity of design or layout of dwellings in this part of St Marys Road, gaps of various sizes at first floor level between dwellings are a characteristic feature. The existing gap between Nos 21 and 23 is one of the smallest and I agree with the Council that the relative proximity of the two dwellings with the high garage roof of the appeal property already gives a cramped visual relationship in the street scene. The extended roof, despite its limited additional height above the garage, would erode the limited space further with the result that compared to surrounding properties the extent of the gap would appear incongruous and uncharacteristic. The proposal would, therefore, be visually harmful in the street scene. 8. This part of the street scene has a relatively open aspect and, therefore, neighbouring properties would have a limited effect in shielding the extension and its relationship with No 21. The effects would be readily apparent from a range of views in the public realm and from neighbouring properties opposite. I have had regard to the other properties in the street drawn to my attention by the appellant. Nos 4 and 16 are similarly close to their shared boundaries, but unlike the relationship between Nos 21 and 23, the neighbouring dwelling in each case retains a relatively large gap at the upper storey. 9. Nos 65, 69 and 73 do share some similarities with the appeal property in terms of roof form, but in each case the gap with the neighbouring property is not as narrow as would be the case with the extended roof as proposed. Therefore, while I have had full regard to these other examples of development, for the reasons given they are not directly comparable to the appeal proposal and do not lead me to reach a different conclusion. 10.Accordingly, for the above reasons, I conclude that while the proposal would not have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling it would have such an effect on the street scene. Consequently, it is contrary in this regard to Policy EC2 of the Local Plan and to RDG2 of the Residential Design Guidance, as described above. The material harm that would result and conflict with the development plan and guidance is sufficient for me to conclude that the appeal should fail. 11.I acknowledge the support for the proposal from nearby residents but this does not alter the overall findings in this case. Appeal Decision APP/M1520/D/17/3177603 3 12.For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, it is concluded that the appeal should not succeed. J Bell-Williamson INSPECTOR