Single storey rear extension, enlargement of the existing rear dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 June 2019 by M Russell BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 July 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/H1515/D/19/3226215 51 The Willows, Hook End Road, Hook End CM15 0HA • 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 & Mrs Watson-Finch against the decision of Brentwood Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/01894/FUL, dated 30 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 1 February 2019. • The development proposed is single storey rear extension, enlargement of the existing rear dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension, enlargement of the existing rear dormer at 51 The Willows, Hook End Road, Hook End CM15 0HA in accordance with the terms of application, Ref 18/01894/FUL, dated 30 November 2018, subject to the following conditions: (1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. (2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following approved drawings: HP/1825/SP1 Location and block plan, HP/1825/2 Proposed plans, HP/1825/4a Proposed elevations and HP/1825/5a Proposed roof 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. Procedural Matter 2. The Council’s decision notice included a different description of development. However, I have assessed the proposal on the basis of the description given on the application form which provides sufficient clarity when read in conjunction with the submitted drawings. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling known as Arundel with particular regard to outlook and light. Appeal Decision APP/H1515/D/19/3226215 2 Reasons Character and appearance 4. Hook End Road is characterised by mainly detached dwellings of a mixture of styles set within spacious plots with front and rear gardens. The host dwelling, The Willows, is a chalet bungalow with dormers to the front and rear roof slopes. There are also ground floor rear projections providing a dining room and a study. The neighbouring dwelling known as Arundel has a box dormer to its rear roof slope as well as a conservatory to the rear elevation positioned close to the boundary with The Willows. Two Oaks, to the west of the site, is a two-storey dwelling. 5. The extensions would include a large flat roofed first floor rear projection. However, the existing first floor elements on the dwelling have a variety of roof forms including a flat roofed dormer spanning a large proportion of the rear roof slope. The proposal would amalgamate the various first floor elements and would include matching materials. Whilst being greater in scale, the new dormer would give the dwelling a more unified appearance. The extensions would not be visible from the street and whilst they would be appreciable from the rear of neighbouring properties, there are already a variety of roof forms in the area. Consequently, the development would not result in materially greater harm to the character and appearance of the area particularly when compared with the existing appearance of the dwelling. 6. The disparities referred to by the Council in respect of the widths, heights and spacing of windows on the proposed dormer are minimal and not so detrimental to the appearance of the proposal to alter my view. 7. To conclude, and taking the above site specific factors into consideration, the proposal would comply with Policy CP1 (General Development Criteria) of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan (2005) (LP) which amongst other things requires that development does not have a detrimental impact on visual amenity, or the character and appearance of the surrounding area and that the design and layout of development should be compatible with its location and any surrounding development and in the case of extensions with the existing building. The proposal would also accord with Chapter 12 of the NPPF which states amongst other things that developments should be sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment. Living conditions of the occupiers of Arundel 8. As a result of the development, the bulk and scale of The Willows would be increased close to the boundary with Arundel. This neighbouring dwelling has a conservatory and first floor windows to its rear elevation. However, Arundel and the Willows are both set in from the shared side boundary. The proposed dormer would be set in further still from the side elevation of the host dwelling. Similarly, the dormer and first floor windows serving Arundel are also set in from its side elevation. There is also an existing high panelled fence which sits along the boundary between these neighbouring properties in close proximity to the conservatory. The rear garden serving Arundel sits mostly beyond the furthest extent of the proposed extensions or to the other side of the conservatory. Appeal Decision APP/H1515/D/19/3226215 3 9. I have carefully considered the existing relationship between dwellings, the boundary treatment already in place and the design and layout of the development. Overall, the spacing and angles between the proposal and the nearest windows and gardens space serving Arundel is sufficient to ensure that, whilst there is likely to be some limited impact on outlook and light when compared with the existing situation, this would not be to the extent that it would result in material harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling. 10. To conclude, the proposal would have an acceptable relationship with the living conditions of the occupiers of Arundel and would comply with Policy CP1 of the LP which amongst other things requires that development does not have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the general amenities of nearby occupiers by way of overbearing effect. The proposal would also adhere to Chapter 12 of the NPPF which amongst other things seeks a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Conditions 11. In addition to the standard time limit for implementation, I consider a condition to confirm the approved drawings is necessary in the interests of clarity. The planning application form confirms that rendered painted masonry and concrete roof tiles are proposed to match the existing dwelling with the latter also confirmed on the proposed plans. A condition securing this would be reasonable in the interests of certainty. Conclusion 12. For the above reasons the appeal is allowed. M Russell INSPECTOR