Front dormers with pitched roof over

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 January 2018 by J Gilbert MA (Hons) MTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M1520/D/17/3183684 39 Stanway Road, South Benfleet, Benfleet SS7 5UX.  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 Mrs Rebecca Bowers against the decision of Castle Point Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/0293/FUL, dated 10 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 June 2017.  The development proposed is front dormers with pitched roof over. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for front dormers with pitched roof over at 39 Stanway Road, South Benfleet, Benfleet SS7 5UX in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/0293/FUL, dated 10 April 2017, 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 approved plans 933 00; 926 01; 933 03 A; 933 04 A; 933 05 A; 933 06 A; 933 07 A; 933 08 A; 933 09 A; 933 10 A. 3) 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. Procedural Matter 2. The existing and proposed site plans are numbered 926 01 and refer to a different address and client. However, the existing and proposed site plans correctly show the appeal site at Stanway Road. I have considered the appeal accordingly. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the pair of semi-detached dwellings at 39 and 43 Stanway Road and the surrounding area. Reasons 4. Stanway Road and adjacent Lea Road, St Clements Road and New Park Road have a varied character with a range of detached and semi-detached Appeal Decision APP/M1520/D/17/3183684 2 bungalows, chalet bungalows and two-storey houses set back from the streets behind front gardens. A number of the bungalows within these four streets have been subject to roof extensions, including front dormer windows of varying age, size and roof treatment. 5. The existing dwelling at 39 Stanway Road is a semi-detached bungalow paired with No 43. No 39 has a large porch with a pitched roof projecting from the front of the bungalow. Its neighbour at No 43 has an integral single garage with a pitched roof. The garage at No 43 protrudes forward of the main building line of the bungalows and is a highly visible feature of the property when viewed from the street. While No 39 has a single rooflight to the front main roofslope of the bungalow, No 43 has 2 rooflights on its front main roofslope. The proposed development comprises two pitched roof dormers which would be sited on the front roofslope of the appeal property at No 39. 6. RDG7 of Council’s Residential Design Guidance supplementary planning document (RDG) (effective from January 2013) advises that the roof design of any development should be compatible primarily with the dwelling, but should also be informed by the prevailing character of the area and surrounding forms of roof development. The RDG also confirms that dormers should be an ancillary feature of the roofscape and must not dominate the roofscape. It adds that any form of roof development which results in the detrimental disruption or loss of symmetry to a pair of dwellings will be refused. 7. The proposed front dormers would have pitched roofs and would be sited high within the roofplane to allow for sufficient roof verges to ensure that they remain ancillary to the main roofslope. The proposed front dormers would neither be top heavy or overly dominant, respecting the general proportions of the existing dwelling at No 39. The existing rooflight would also be removed and no further rooflights are proposed as part of the proposed development. I note that the Council has not objected to the proposed development in respect of its design, and consider that the proposed development would be of an appropriate design to adhere to the requirements of RDG7 of the RDG. 8. Turning to the purported loss of symmetry to the pair of dwellings at Nos 39 and 43, the symmetry of the pair of semi-detached dwellings has already been significantly reduced as a result of previous extensions and alterations to both properties. The projections of their respective porch and garage in particular have changed the proportions and regularity of the pair of dwellings when viewed from the street. While No 43 does not have front dormers, in the context of the existing alterations to the pair of dwellings and the presence of extended houses within the street and neighbouring Lea Road, St Clements Road and New Park Road, I do not consider that the proposed development would cause loss of symmetry or would be harmful in regard to its effect on the pair of houses or the surrounding area. 9. Concluding on this main issue, I find that the proposed development would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the pair of semi-detached dwellings at 39 and 43 Stanway Road and the surrounding area. It would, therefore, comply with policy EC2 of the Castle Point Borough Council Local Plan (1998), which requires a high standard of design and states amongst other things that the scale, density, siting, design, layout and external materials of any development should be appropriate to its setting and should not harm the character of its surroundings. It would also accord with the Appeal Decision APP/M1520/D/17/3183684 3 requirements of the RDG. The proposed development would also be compliant with a core planning principle of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to secure high quality design. Conclusion 10. For the reasons set out above, and having taken into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Conditions 11. Subject to a condition requiring the control of external materials for construction to ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory, the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the pair of semi-detached dwellings and the surrounding area. In addition, conditions should be imposed to require the standard time limits and set out the approved plans in the interests of certainty. J Gilbert INSPECTOR