Raise and alter the roof to form habitable accommodation in the roof of the original house, to be constructed of dormers to the rear with small cottage dormer to the front. The second part of the house to remain unchanged. The single storey garage attached to the left hand side to be converted to a bedroom with an en suite to the rear, access from lounge, the front to be constructed with matching bay window, with a matching pitched/tiled roof similar to existing

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 September 2018 by H Lock BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/D1590/D/18/3206363 16 Recreation Avenue, Leigh on Sea, Essex, SS9 3JX  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 David Mansfield & Mrs Kate Mansfield against the decision of Southend-on-Sea Borough Council.  The application Ref. 18/00218/FULH, dated 8 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 13 April 2018.  The development proposed is described as ‘raise and alter the roof to form habitable accommodation in the roof of the original house, to be constructed of dormers to the rear with small cottage dormer to the front. The second part of the house to remain unchanged. The single storey garage attached to the left hand side to be converted to a bedroom with an en suite to the rear, access from lounge, the front to be constructed with matching bay window, with a matching pitched/tiled roof similar to existing dwelling’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to ‘raise and alter the roof to form habitable accommodation in the roof of the original house, to be constructed of dormers to the rear with small cottage dormer to the front’. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted insofar as it relates to ‘the single storey garage attached to the left hand side to be converted to a bedroom with an en suite to the rear, access from lounge, the front to be constructed with matching bay window, with a matching pitched/tiled roof similar to existing dwelling’, at 16 Recreation Avenue, Leigh on Sea, Essex, SS9 3JX, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 18/00218/FULH, dated 8 February 2018, and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) Insofar as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 01 Existing GF Plan; 02 Proposed GF Plan; 06 Existing Roof Plan; 07 Proposed Roof Plan; 08 Existing Elevations ; 09 Proposed Elevations; and 10 Location 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. Appeal Decision APP/D1590/D/18/3206363 2 Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached house located in a mixed street scene which contains a variety of building styles, including single-storey dwellings and a block of flats with commercial property below. Although semi-detached, the appeal property differs from the attached dwelling as a result of the staggered roof height and existing extensions. 4. The proposal includes the raising of the roof to the original part of the dwelling, and creating a large flat roofed dormer window on the rear roof slope, and extending across an existing two-storey rear wing. Whilst I appreciate the stated need for the level of accommodation sought, the proposed rear roof extension would appear unduly dominant on the building as a result of its size, scale and design. Although there are other flat-roofed buildings and dormer windows in the vicinity, these are either part of a comprehensive design or are far more modest in proportion relative to the host building. In this case, the ‘L’- shaped dormer window would effectively create a flat-roofed second floor extension that would not respect the more traditional roof form and proportions of the dwelling. The roof of the building would be overwhelmed by the addition. 5. Moreover, although the extension would be located at the rear of the property, it would be highly visible in the street scene as a result of the local topography, the spacing between the appeal property and the adjacent No.22, and the lower height of that building. The rear roofscape is also visible in gaps between buildings from Grange Park Drive to the rear. 6. DMD1 Policy DM1 seeks design which adds to the overall quality of the area and respects the character of the site, its local context and surroundings in terms including architectural approach, size, scale, form, massing and proportions. It requires all development proposals to draw reference from the principles set out in Supplementary Planning Document 1 ‘Design and Townscape Guide’ 2009. Paragraph 366 of that document advises that additional roof accommodation must respect the style, scale and form of the existing roof design, and that dormer windows should appear incidental in the roof slope, being set in from both side walls, set well below the ridgeline and well above the eaves. It advises that large box style dormers should be avoided. The design of the proposal would be in clear conflict with this guidance. 7. The appellants have identified a number of roof alterations and buildings in the surrounding area, and I accept that there is a wide mix of designs in the locality. However, limited information has been provided of the circumstances of their construction, including the planning permissions granted and the rationale for the decisions. The Council’s report indicates that many of the dormer windows were constructed without the need for express planning permission. Moreover, whilst some of them are reasonably large, it is not evident that any share the same ‘L’-shaped design and scale as proposed in this case. As a result, these offer limited support to the appeal proposal. I note the scale and design of the apartment block at the road junction, but its 1 Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Local Planning Framework Development Management Document July 2015 Appeal Decision APP/D1590/D/18/3206363 3 contemporary style does not support the architectural mix proposed in this case. 8. I note that no objections were received from surrounding residents in response to consultation on the planning application. However, this is only one factor to be considered in the determination of the proposal, and would not outweigh the harm identified above. 9. The proposal includes a front dormer window, and due to the presence of others in the vicinity I share the Council’s assessment that this would be acceptable in its impact. However, as this element is part of the overall roof extension I am unable to determine it separately. 10. I consider that the proposed pitched roof to the garage and the bay window would enhance the appearance of the dwelling and the street scene. As they are clearly severable from the main roof extension and both physically and functionally independent, I propose to issue a split decision. In so doing, and having regard to the stated need, this would allow for the provision of an additional bedroom. 11. I therefore conclude that the creation of the habitable accommodation through the proposed rear dormer would detract from the character and appearance of the appeal property and the wider area, in conflict with DMD Policies DM1, and DM3, which amongst other criteria requires additions to buildings to use detailing which ensures successful integration with the original building, and to adopt a scale that is respectful and subservient; and contrary to the overarching aims to create a high quality and sustainable urban environment as set out in Core Strategy2 Policies CP4 and KP2. However, I conclude that the proposed bay window and roof to the converted garage would be acceptable in this regard, and would accord with the above stated policies. 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. For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part. H Lock INSPECTOR 2 Southend on Sea Borough Council Local Development Framework Development Plan Document One, Core Strategy 2007