Single storey ground floor extension and changes to the existing roof construction (converting hip end to gable end matching No.26 adjoining property) and enlarging the existing front and rear dormers

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 July 2018 by H Lock BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:20 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M1595/D/18/3201044 28 Elmstead Close, Corringham, Essex, SS17 9EL  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 Paul Wilson against the decision of Thurrock Borough Council.  The application Ref. 18/00070/HHA, dated 6 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 21 March 2018.  The development proposed is single storey ground floor extension and changes to the existing roof construction (converting hip end to gable end matching No.26 adjoining property) and enlarging the existing front and rear dormers. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey ground floor extension and changes to the existing roof construction (converting hip end to gable end matching No.26 adjoining property) and enlarging the existing front and rear dormers, at 28 Elmstead Close, Corringham, Essex, SS17 9EL, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 18/00070/HHA, dated 6 November 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: 11/05A; 11/01B; 11/02B; 11/06; and 11/07. 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 description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. However, in Part E of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has not changed but, nevertheless, a different wording has been entered. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the one given on the original application. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property, the semi-detached pair of which it forms part, and the street scene. Appeal Decision APP/M1595/D/18/3201044 2 Reasons 4. The appeal property is a semi-detached single-storey dwelling with flat-roofed front and rear dormer windows. It is in a residential area with other single- storey properties, many of which have been extended with dormer windows of different size, scale, design and materials. The existing dwelling has a hipped roof to the side, but contrary to the Council’s assessment the attached semi- detached property has extended its side hipped roof into a gable end. 5. Given the roof form of the attached property the proposed gable end would restore a degree of symmetry to the semi-detached pair. In this regard, I do not share the Council’s assessment that the proposal would create imbalance that would be harmful to the pair of properties and the wider street scene. 6. The extended roof would facilitate an extension to the existing rear dormer window that would result in the addition occupying much of the rear roof slope. This would conflict with the detailed guidance set out in the ‘Thurrock Design Guide Residential Alterations & Extensions SPD’ July 2017 (RAE). I am mindful that this is a relatively recent document, but the glossary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) confirms that supplementary planning documents are capable of being a material planning consideration in planning decisions but are not part of the development plan. The RAE confirms that the guidelines may not be relevant in every case, and that each application will be considered on its own merits and tested against the planning policies outlined in the Local Plan.1 7. In this context, whilst I have had regard to the detailed criteria set out in the RAE, I consider its rigid application would be difficult to apply to this property, as the height of the dormer extensions is dictated by the position of the existing dormers on the roof. Moreover, to require a narrower width would be at odds with the large rear dormer window on the attached property. To require a smaller dormer at the appeal site would detract from the semi- detached pair as it would not create a balanced appearance. Although the resultant rear dormer window would not comply with the RAE guidance, given its location on the rear roof slope and with limited visual impact beyond the site, it would not result in material harm, and would accord with the aims of Policy CSTP22 of the Core Strategy2 by demonstrating a thorough understanding of, and positive response to, the local context. 8. I note that the front dormer window would not accord with the criteria of the RAE in terms of its width but the Council raises no objection to this aspect of the development, thereby indicating a degree of flexibility in the application of the guidance. 9. I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the appeal property, the semi-detached pair of which it forms part, and the street scene, and would accord with the design aims of CS Policies CSTP22 and PMD2, which seeks to ensure that design proposals respond to the sensitivity of the site and its surroundings, to optimise the potential of the site to accommodate development, to fully investigate the magnitude of change that would result from the proposals, and 1 Page 9 of the RAE 2 Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development Focused Review: Consistency with National Planning Policy Framework Adopted January 2015 Appeal Decision APP/M1595/D/18/3201044 3 to mitigate against negative impacts. Whilst I have had regard to the detailed guidance in the RAE, for the reasons outlined above I do not find its application in this case would result in an acceptable form of development. Other Matters 10. The appeal property and the neighbouring property, 30 Elmstead Close, have a shared vehicular access that leads to garages in their rear gardens. The garage at the appeal site is shown to be demolished on the submitted plans. At the appeal site visit it was evident that the boundaries between the gardens and shared access are in different locations, with the position of the wall to No.30 being set further into its garden than at the appeal site. This allows for more manoeuvring space in front of the garage to No.30. 11. I note the concern of the neighbouring resident that the proposed rear extension would reduce access to the garage at No.30. I accept that the shared space is not overly generous, but it is not evident that the proposal would prohibit access to the neighbouring garage. However, the grant of planning permission would not override civil land ownership rights, and if the rear extension was proposed to be built across land that should remain open for shared manoeuvring space, this is a private legal matter between the parties, and beyond the scope of this appeal. Civil issues of land ownership would not be reason to withhold planning permission. Conditions 12. 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 13. The 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