Proposed loft conversion with a flat roof rear dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 May 2018 by Timothy C King BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 18 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/V1505/D/17/3184808 9 Eastfield Road, Noak Bridge, Basildon SS15 4FH  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 & Mrs Paul & Tracey Hodghton against the decision of Basildon Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/00686/FULL, dated 17 May 2017 was refused by notice dated 24 July 2017.  The development proposed is described as ‘Proposed loft conversion with a flat roof rear dormer.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the proposal’s effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appellants, in support of their case, have cited other rear dormer extensions in situ in the local area. I find the most relevant is that at No 10 Eastfield Road on the west side of the street, opposite the appeal site. An application for a Certificate of Lawfulness submitted in 2010 confirmed that the erection of what is shown as a full width roof extension would satisfy the provisos of Class B, Part A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order. 4. The above approach, however, is not possible on the east side of the street as, when allowing an appeal and granting planning permission for 10 new dwellings in 2010 (APP/V1505/A/09/2112223), the then Inspector cancelled domestic permitted development rights reasoning that this would safeguard the living conditions of both existing and future residents. The appeal dwelling is part of this development and, as such, the Council retains control on householder extensions proposed on this stretch of the east side of the street. 5. Restricting permitted development rights in such instances does not necessarily mean that householder extensions would not be acceptable per se, merely that the Council is able to consider the merits and/or impacts of development proposals submitted. In this particular case, in refusing planning permission, Appeal Decision APP/V1505/D/17/3184808 2 the Council has not referred to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and has raised concerns only on the basis that the proposal would not make a positive contribution to the character of the area. 6. The submitted plan (Drawing No 962 07 B) shows that the roof extension at issue would be set in from the dwelling’s flanks, would be set up from the eaves and its roof would reach to just below ridge height and then slope significantly downwards to meet the dormer’s rear wall. The sloping roof would be consistent with the appearance of other roof projections on a series of dwellings along Eastfield Road to the south which are visible from the appeal property’s rear garden. I noted that these roof features, smaller in scale than the appeal proposal, relate well to their context with their sloping roofs, in particular, ensuring an integral appearance. I also glimpsed other such features on the rear elevations of dwellings further along this side of the street. 7. However, notwithstanding the above the said elevational drawing is not representative of the proposal as has been described on the application form. In fact, both the application and appeal forms refer instead to ‘a flat roof rear dormer’. Given the width of the proposed dormer a flat roof would give it more of an unappealing box-like appearance, accentuating its bulk, and this would not be consistent with the immediate area’s character. The extension would also be visible, albeit partially, from the gap in the built form beyond No 5. This discrepancy between the description of the development and the submitted drawing is clearly material in assessing this appeal. 8. The photographs supplied by the appellants of other local dormer extensions are attached to dwellings with noticeably different designs to the appeal dwelling and I afford this little weight. 9. The Council has provided a list of Development Control Guidelines referred to in its reasons for refusal, some of which the proposal does not meet. However, I note that these represent Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) whereas Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon District Local Plan (LP) is adopted policy and indicates that planning permission for extensions or alterations will be refused if there would be material harm to, amongst other things, the character of the surrounding area. I find that the proposal would be contrary to the said policy’s aims and this weighs heavily against the development. 10. Accordingly, given the circumstances, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, contrary to the design objectives of LP Policy BAS BE12, the Council’s SPG and also those of the National Planning Policy Framework. 11. For the above reasons, and having regard to all matters raised, the appeal does not succeed. Timothy C King INSPECTOR