Erection of a loft conversion, rear dormer, extra windows and Juliet balcony

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 January 2018 by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date:22 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/J1535/D/17/3184923 59 The Gables, Ongar CM5 0GA  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 Ian Lorking against the decision of Epping Forest District Council.  The application Ref PL/EPF/1416/17, dated 31 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 31 July 2017.  The development proposed is the erection of a loft conversion, rear dormer, extra windows and Juliet balcony. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The site visit was arranged to be on the basis of access being available to the appeal property. However, there was no one available to provide access when site visit was undertaken. Instead, it was possible view to the property from the public highway and the rear garden of 58 The Gables. Main Issues 3. It is considered that the main issues are the effects of the proposed development on (a) the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene, and (b) the living conditions of the occupiers of 58 The Gables. Reasons Character and Appearance 4. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling situated on a corner plot and it is located within a residential development comprising mainly 2-storey dwellings which are sited close to the carriageway of The Gables. The property is sited perpendicular to No. 58. The roof of No. 58 extends from the roofslope of the property and possesses a lower ridge height. From the north, the existing juxtaposition between the roofs is clearly visible from The Gables. 5. With the exception of No. 35, the surrounding dwellings do not possess roof extensions noticeable from the road. The appellant has provided some details about the planning circumstances of the roof extension at No. 35 which comprises a dormer erected within a side roofslope of a detached dwelling (Ref PL/EPF/2289/16). The Planning Officer’s assessment was that the cheek of this dormer would be visible at a narrow angle from the north and the adjacent Appeal Decision APP/J1535/D/17/3184923 2 dwelling would screen nearly all the view of the dormer. This assessment is reflected by what was observed during the site visit. The dormer at No. 35 is not, therefore, a particularly noticeable or visually dominant feature within the streetscene whether viewed from the north or west. 6. The proposed development includes the erection of a dormer with the roofslope of the property adjacent to No. 58. As noted by the appellant, the size, siting, and form of the proposed dormer might accord with the limitations for such roof extensions being erected as permitted development. However, according to the available evidence this is case where permitted development rights for such extensions were removed by condition when the surrounding housing scheme was erected and I am required to assess the appeal scheme. 7. From some directions, the proposed dormer would not be particularly noticeable because of the screening effect of the property’s existing roof. However, by reason of the lower roof height of No. 58, there would be a clear view of the appeal scheme from the north. From this direction, the proposed dormer would appear a bulky and conspicuous addition to the roofslope rather than a modest or subordinate roof extension. There would also be a view of the cheek of the proposed dormer from the west above the neighbouring gardens. From these locations, the proposed dormer would fail to respect or complement the roofscape of the neighbouring dwellings which form part of the overall character and appearance of the surrounding area and streetscape. 8. When viewed from the north, there would be an awkward juxtaposition at roof level between the extended property and No. 58 which would be detrimental to the appearance of this pair of semi-detached dwellings. The visual prominence of the proposed dormer and its failure to complement or respect the design of this pair of semi-detached dwellings would also be evident from the neighbouring gardens. 9. The semi-detached nature of the property and the materially greater visual prominence of the proposed development when viewed from The Gables readily distinguishes the appeal scheme from the dormer at No. 35. The retention of roofspace around the proposed dormer and the use of matching materials would not adequately address the unacceptable harm which has been identified. 10. For the reasons given, on this issue it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene and, as such, it would conflict with Policy DBE10 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan, including the Local Plan Alterations (LP). Amongst other matters this policy requires residential extensions to complement the appearance of the streetscene and to have regard to the existing building including its scale, form and roof treatment. This policy is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework’s (the Framework) core principle of securing high quality design. Living Conditions 11. The 2-storey flank wall of the appeal property projects beyond the rear of elevation of No. 58 by about 2.5 metres. The current outlook from the nearest first floor bedroom window of No. 58 includes the flank wall and a small part of the property’s roofslope. From this window the proposed dormer would form part of the occupiers’ outlook. However, by reason of being set back from the Appeal Decision APP/J1535/D/17/3184923 3 eaves and side of the roof, the proposed dormer would not be so conspicuous or visually obtrusive so as to cause a material change in the outlook from this window. There would be no change to the outlook from the kitchen window which would remain dominated by the existing flank wall. The appeal scheme would not, therefore, result in an excessively overbearing form of development in the outlook from these windows. 12. From the patio area adjacent to the rear of No. 58 the proposed dormer would be a noticeable addition to the property’s roof. By reason of the loss of the roofslope and the addition of the proposed dormer, there would be an impression of the property being a 3-storey dwelling. However, because its siting and the retained roofslopes, only a limited part of the proposed roof extension would be visible from the patio area. Accordingly, the appeal scheme would not accentuate any existing sense enclosure associated with the flank wall. For this reason, the appeal scheme would not result in an excessively overbearing or oppressive form of development. 13. A bedroom window is proposed which would have the potential to enable the patio and garden of No. 58 to be overlooked and this would be detrimental to the privacy of the occupiers of this neighbouring property and others. However, the proposed window would be a secondary opening and it would, therefore, be possible to require by condition the window to be obscurely glazed and non-opening to address any concerns about overlooking and loss of privacy. The Council has not objected to the proposed Juliette balcony because of concerns associated with loss of privacy and there are no reasons for me to disagree with the Council’s assessment. 14. Although the claims of local residents about the potential loss of sunlight and daylight to their properties have been carefully noted, any adverse impacts would not be sufficient reason for this appeal to fail. This judgement is based upon the absence of any additional height to the roof of the appeal property and the separation distance between the proposed dormer and other neighbouring dwellings. 15. On this issue it is concluded that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of 58 The Gables and, as such, it would not conflict with LP Policy DBE9 which refers to extensions not resulting in an excessive loss of amenity for neighbouring properties. This policy is consistent with the Framework’s core principle of securing a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Conclusion 16. Although the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of 58 The Gables, this matter is demonstrably and significantly outweighed by the unacceptable harm which would be caused to the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene. Accordingly, and taking into account all other matters, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed. D J Barnes INSPECTOR