Three-storey side extension, single-storey rear extension, loft conversion with rear dormer and internal alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 August 2018 by J A B Gresty MA MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 17 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z1510/D/18/3205465 16 Ebenezer Close, Witham, Essex CM8 2HX  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 Matthew Burley against the decision of Braintree District Council.  The application Ref 18/00231/FUL, dated 30 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 18 June 2018.  The development proposed is a three-storey side extension, single-storey rear extension, loft conversion with rear dormer and internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two-storey end of terrace house situated on an estate characterised by similar size and style semi-detached and terraced houses. The host terrace is formed by four houses and, to take account in the slope of the ground, is stepped between 14 and 12 Ebenezer Close, creating a visual break in the roof line of the terrace. 4. The appeal proposal includes a two-storey side extension with second floor accommodation built into the roof space. The extension would occupy the space between the house and the appeal property’s boundary with No 18. The roof of the extension would be a continuation of the host building’s roof and there would be no visual break between the extension and the host building. The lack of visual break would result in the extension giving the appeal property a large and bulky appearance which would dominate the appearance of the host terrace in the street scene. 5. No 18 next door stands on slightly lower ground than the appeal property. The side wall of the extension would stand next to No 18’s single storey outbuilding and about 2.5 metres from No 18’s gable end wall. Because of its height and close proximity to No 18, the extension would appear large and very prominent in the street scene in comparison to No 18. Also, the extension would roughly halve the visible open space between the dwellings which, in combination with Appeal Decision APP/Z1510/D/18/3205465 2 the extension’s height, would contribute to the extension’s prominent appearance. 6. The appeal proposal includes construction of a flat-roofed dormer on the rear elevation of the host building’s roof. The roof of the dormer would be nearly at the level of the ridge of the existing roof and the front wall of the dormer would extend almost to the eaves of the roof. Consequently, the dormer would occupy nearly the whole of the rear elevation of the host dwelling’s roof. Because of its size and box-like design, the dormer would dominate the appearance of rear elevation of the dwelling and it would be an unduly prominent and stark feature which would detract from the character and appearance of the appeal property and terrace as a whole. 7. The third main element of the proposed development would be a single-storey flat roofed projection from the rear elevation of the proposed two-storey side extension. The single-storey extension would not be a prominent feature of the property and would not be readily visible from outside the appeal property’s plot. Therefore, it would have limited effect on the character or appearance of the host property and local area. Conclusion 8. At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area. 9. In this case the proposed two-storey side extension and rear dormer would be unduly prominent features which would dominate the appearance of the host building and detract from the character an appearance of the host terrace and neighbouring property at No 18. Ebenezer Close has a strongly planned character and appearance and the prominence of the proposed development would detract from the character and appearance of Ebenezer Close. In these respects, the proposed development would fail to represent sustainable development as sought by the Framework and would not comply with saved Policies RLP 17 and RLP 90 of the Braintree District Council Local Plan Review or Policy CS 9 of the Braintree District Council Core Strategy. Further the development would meet with the requirements of emerging Policies LPP 38 and LPP 55 of the Braintree Publication Draft Local Plan, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development. 10. Whilst the proposed development would provide useful additional living space for the appellant and his family, on balance and for the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J A B Gresty INSPECTOR