Single storey rear extension and loft conversion including dormer windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 March 2018 by J Bell-Williamson MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/D1590/D/17/3191624 137 Rayleigh Road, Eastwood SS9 5XE  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 Duce against the decision of Southend-on-Sea Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/01534/FULH, dated 30 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 20 November 2017.  The development proposed is single storey rear extension and loft conversion including dormer windows. Preliminary Matter 1. The extension and dormer windows the subject of this appeal had largely been constructed at the time of the inspection. Accordingly, I have dealt with the appeal on the basis that it involves an application for retrospective permission. Decision 2. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a detached bungalow located next to the junction of Rayleigh Road with Willow Close. The surrounding area is predominantly residential with a mix of bungalows and two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings. 5. Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Southend Core Strategy and Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Southend Development Management Document all include requirements relating to high quality design in new development and respect for the character and scale of existing development and the surrounding area. These policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly section seven concerning good design. Appeal Decision APP/D1590/D/17/3191624 2 6. The Supplementary Planning Document 1 Design and Townscape Guide (the SPD) provides more detailed guidance in support of these development plan policies. It says that additional roof accommodation within existing properties must respect the style, scale and form of the existing roof design and the character of the wider townscape. 7. The submitted plans show the original dwelling as a relatively modestly-sized bungalow with a simple unaltered roof form, similar to most of those alongside it on Rayleigh Road and behind it on Willow Close. The rear extension would be a limited change to its built form as it would not add substantive depth and would respect the original roofscape. As such, this element of the proposal would not result in any harm to the host dwelling or surrounding area. I accept also the appellant’s contention that the partial removal of the chimney is not harmful. 8. The proposal involves adding a dormer to each of the four pitched roof slopes. Those to the front and rear match and have a hipped and pitched design positioned almost level with the main roof ridge; those to either side are also matching but are larger flat-roofed box style dormers. While individually each of these windows is proportionate to the scale of the roof plane on which it is positioned, the windows are seen in combination from surrounding views. 9. The combined effect of the dormers materially alters the simple original roof form, by together adding considerable bulk and mass to it and unbalancing the proportions of the host dwelling, giving it a ‘top heavy’ appearance. Moreover, the different designs to the sides, front and rear draws further attention to these features and gives them an incongruous, uneven appearance that harmfully undermines the simple design of the host dwelling in its original form. 10.There are a limited number of dormer windows visible within the street scene and area surrounding No 137. These are largely in the form of single dormers to the front roof slope of properties, including the adjacent bungalow, No 143, some of the bungalows along Willow Close, and on some two storey dwellings along the main road to the north. The four dormers on the appeal property compared to the single window that is more generally the case on surrounding properties, appears incongruous and uncharacteristic within the street scene. Moreover, the prominence of the extended dwelling is heightened by the use of large grey roof tiles, which contrast unfavourably with the general use of reddish brown tiles on the majority of surrounding properties. 11.The appearance and prominence of the extended dwelling is in part due to its position on rising ground as Rayleigh Road inclines gently uphill. This means that in its extended form No 137 is framed by views of the smaller properties along Willow Close to the rear and the smaller bungalows to either side. As such, due to the bulk of its roof with four dormers and the different materials used for the extended roof, it represents a particularly incongruous and uncharacteristic built form within the street scene, both in its own right and by contrast to the general character and appearance of the surrounding area. 12.I have had regard to the appellant’s contention that the Council’s reasons for refusal and policy basis for its decision are unclear. However, the Council gave a specific reason for its refusal of permission in its decision notice and the officer report provides details under the ‘Design’ heading of the particular parts Appeal Decision APP/D1590/D/17/3191624 3 of the relevant development plan policies and guidance that informed the decision. As such, I find nothing unusual in the manner in which the Council made its assessment which informed its decision or the basis for that decision. There is nothing in the appeal submissions to suggest that inappropriate weight was given to the SPD compared to development plan policies. Therefore, while I have had regard to this matter raised by the appellant it does lead me to reach a different conclusion on the appeal. 13.Therefore, for all the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal has an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. As such, it is contrary to the development plan policies and the SPD referred to above and, as a result, the appeal should not succeed. J Bell-Williamson INSPECTOR