Single-storey rear extension with integral flat roof over forming additional rooms in the roof extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 October 2018 by J L Cheesley BA(Hons) DIPTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M1595/D/18/3208053 68 Chestnut Avenue, Grays, Essex RM16 2UJ  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 Anthony Cleary against the decision of Thurrock Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/00735/HHA was refused by notice dated 23 July 2018.  The development proposed is a single-storey rear extension with integral flat roof over forming additional rooms in the roof extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issues 2. I consider the main issues to be the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached chalet bungalow in a primarily residential area. The surrounding area comprises a mix of single and two-storey properties. The appeal property lies within a group of bungalows and chalet bungalows. It has previously been extended to include a flat roof rear dormer. Surrounding properties have various single-storey rear extensions, including conservatories. As such, the character of the rear garden environment is one of an array of single-storey small scale structures of various designs. 4. The proposal includes the demolition of an existing rear conservatory and the extension across the whole rear elevation at ground floor level. A first floor rear extension, across much of the width of the dwelling, would project over part of this rear extension. 5. The rear elevation would alter from that of a bungalow with a rear dormer in the roof to a rear projection within the roof with a flat roof and hipped sides and a flat roof single-storey projection. It would be visible to some extent from rear gardens in the surrounding area. From my observations, due to the bulk and design of the proposed extension, I consider it would totally overwhelm the character and appearance of the original dwelling. It would appear as an Appeal Decision APP/M1595/D/18/3208053 2 incongruous addition that would be visually intrusive in the rear garden environment. The form and scale of the proposal would not be in keeping with the character and appearance of the original dwelling or the surrounding rear garden form of small scale additions to dwellings. 6. In reaching my conclusion I have had regard to all matters raised. For the reasons stated above, I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to guidance in the Thurrock Design Guide Residential Alterations and Extensions SPD (2017) and Policies CSTP22, and PMD2 in the Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development (as amended) (2015), where they seek to ensure high quality design that respects the distinct positive characteristics of an area. 7. Since the Council made its decision on this proposal, national policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) has been replaced by a revised National Planning Policy Framework (2018). At paragraph 213 it states that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. In this particular instance, I consider that Core Strategy Policies CSTP22, and PMD2 are broadly consistent with the Framework where it seeks to ensure good design and for new development to be sympathetic to local character. J L Cheesley INSPECTOR