Rear dormer loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 April 2018 by H Lock BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/D1590/D/17/3192488 97 Wakering Avenue, Shoeburyness, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, SS3 9BD  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 Kyle Halsey against the decision of Southend-on-Sea Borough Council.  The application Ref. 17/01493/FULH, dated 21 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 17 October 2017.  The development proposed is rear dormer loft conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for rear dormer loft conversion at 97 Wakering Avenue, Shoeburyness, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, SS3 9BD, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 17/01493/FULH, dated 21 August 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 404 Revision B; and 1:50 scale Roof Plan. 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. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached house in a residential area of similarly designed dwellings. The road comprises primarily semi-detached and terraced houses, with narrow pedestrian gaps in between. This has the effect that the rear roofscape is not generally visible from the front of the property, although there are longer range views of the rear of the dwellings in Wakering Avenue from side roads. Roof extensions are not prevalent in the vicinity, but there is a large flat-roofed rear dormer window within the same housing group, on the western side of Wakering Avenue, and another on the opposite side of the road. Within the wider residential estate there are a range of front and rear dormer windows visible, and these all form part of the general character and Appeal Decision APP/D1590/D/17/3192488 2 appearance of the area. In this context, the principle of a rear dormer at the appeal property would not be discordant or incongruous in its setting. 4. Policy DM1 of the Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Local Planning Framework Development Management Document 2015 (DMD) seeks good design that adds to the overall quality of the area and respects the character of the site, its local context and surroundings in matters including architectural approach, size, scale, form, massing and detailed design. The Council’s Design and Townscape Guide 20091 sets out detailed guidance on the size and design of dormer windows to be sought, and advises that large box style dormers should be avoided, especially where they have a public impact, as they appear bulky and unsightly. 5. Whilst the proposed dormer window would be reasonably large, its visual impact on the public domain would be limited given the close-knit siting of buildings and the distant views from side roads, with a similarly scaled dormer in the same vista; a number of similar examples are also visible from Elm Road. In terms of its impact on the host property, having regard to the Council’s guidance, I acknowledge that the proposal would appear more than ‘incidental’ on the roofslope, but it would not be overly dominant on the building as it would be set in from both side walls, set below the ridgeline and above the eaves. Given the character and appearance of other extended dwellings in the vicinity, I consider that the proposal would achieve the aims of DMD Policy DM1 and would be an appropriate response for the property. 6. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not detract from the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area, and would accord with the overarching design aims of Policies CP4 and KP2 of the Southend-on- Sea Core Strategy 2007, and DMD Policies DM1, and DM3, which amongst other criteria requires building additions to adopt a scale that is respectful and subservient to that of the original building and surrounding area. Conditions 7. In addition to the standard time limit, I have attached a condition specifying the approved drawings as this provides certainty. It is also appropriate to control materials to match the existing dwelling, in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the development and the area. Conclusion 8. The National Planning Policy Framework establishes a presumption in favour of sustainable development, and part of its environmental strand is to contribute to protecting and enhancing the built environment. A core planning principle of the Framework is to always seek to secure high quality design, and for the reasons given above the proposal would comply with this principle and would be sustainable development supported through the Framework. As a consequence, I conclude that this appeal should be allowed. H Lock INSPECTOR 1 Southend-on-Sea Design and Townscape Guide 2009 Supplementary Planning Document 1