Demolish existing external Utility Room and 2 chimney stacks. Re-plan internally to create an extended Family Room and extend same by 3m and top up with a flat roof and a rooflight. Extend right-hand existing Bedroom by 2.5m. Re-plan the existing bathroom and add a staircase leading to the proposed loft space. Extend the footprint of the main roof to cover the flat roof area at the rear of the Garage. Convert the loft space into 2 bedrooms with a bathroom. Add

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: 12 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/D1590/D/18/3206939 117 Marcus Avenue, Thorpe Bay, SOUTHEND-ON-SEA, SS1 3LQ  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 Ms Janet Bevan against the decision of Southend-on-Sea Borough Council.  The application Ref. 18/00844/FULH, dated 4 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 29 June 2018.  The development proposed is described as ‘Demolish existing external Utility Room and 2 chimney stacks. Re-plan internally to create an extended Family Room and extend same by 3m and top up with a flat roof and a rooflight. Extend right-hand existing Bedroom by 2.5m. Re-plan the existing bathroom and add a staircase leading to the proposed loft space. Extend the footprint of the main roof to cover the flat roof area at the rear of the Garage. Convert the loft space into 2 bedrooms with a bathroom. Add one front and 2 rear dormers and one side dormer. Add 2 Velux type rooflights’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The Council refers to the National Planning Policy Framework, but a revised document (‘the Framework’) has been published since the application was determined. However, it reiterates the aim to achieve well-designed places and I have taken the revised document into account in this decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the wider street scene. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a single-storey dwelling (‘bungalow’) in an area characterised by dwellings of similar scale. There is some variety in the street scene, as designs are not uniform, and there are two-storey houses further along the road. Within this mix, a number of bungalows in the locality have dormer windows and rooflights, some of which are more successfully integrated in the streetscene than others. However, as noted by the Council, these examples are at odds with the prevailing character of single-storey buildings. 5. The Council’s DTG1 identifies that there are areas of the Borough that are predominately made up of bungalows, and that scale and grain are two of the most important aspects of local character as they bring strong cohesiveness to 1 Supplementary Planning Document 1 ‘Design and Townscape Guide’ 2009 Appeal Decision APP/D1590/D/18/3206939 2 the area. In this context, DMD2 Policy DM3 does not support the conversion of single-storey buildings if they would create an unacceptable juxtaposition within the streetscene that would harm the character and appearance of the area. Whilst I note that there are some roof additions in the locality, I reiterate that a strong characteristic is the prevalence of single-storey dwellings. 6. The DTG advises that, where dormer windows are appropriate, their size should be smaller than openings on lower floors. The proposed dormers would be set below the roof ridge, above the eaves, and in from both side walls, but this is not sufficient to prevent the front and side dormers appearing overly large and dominant on the building. This would be exacerbated by the number of dormer windows and rooflights, and their highly visible positions in the streetscene. As a result, the proposal would create the juxtaposition which DMD Policy DM3 seeks to avoid. However, in isolation, the raising of part of the roof ridge would be acceptable as it would remain at a height in keeping with nearby dwellings. 7. The appellant has identified specific roof extensions in the local area. However, I have not been provided with details of any planning permissions granted, and the rationale for those decisions. Indeed, some may have been built without the need for express planning permission. In the absence of such details I cannot be sure that those developments were assessed against the Council’s current planning policies and design guidance, and therefore they offer only limited support to the appeal. 8. The proposal includes front and rear extensions which the Council does not oppose, and I agree that the design and scale of both would be acceptable in relation to the appeal property. Whilst I note the concerns of some local residents, I do not find that the ‘building line’ is uniform, and therefore the proposed front extension would not significantly impact on the streetscene. 9. I therefore conclude that the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the appeal property and the wider street scene, in conflict with the design aims of CS3 Policies CP4 and KP2, to create a high quality urban environment which maintains and enhances the amenities, appeal and character of residential areas, and which respects the character and scale of the existing neighbourhood; and contrary to DMD Policies DM3, and DM1, which requires development to respect the character of the site, its local context and surroundings in terms including architectural approach, size, scale, form, massing and proportions; and guidance in the DTG. Other Matters 10. Having regard to the representations received in response to consultation on the application, I share the assessment of the Council that, subject to conditions, the proposal would not result in any detriment to neighbouring residents in terms of overlooking, loss of light or overbearing impact. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. H Lock INSPECTOR 2 Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Local Planning Framework Development Management Document July 2015 3 Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Local Development Framework Development Plan Document One, Core Strategy 2007