Roof replacement, roof conversion and dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 September 2025 by E Nutman BA (Hons) Decision by Zoe Raygen DipURP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26th November 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/X3540/D/25/3370933 2 Smiths Walk, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 8QN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Ms T Marjoram against the decision of East Suffolk Council. • The application Ref is DC/25/2294/FUL. • The development proposed is roof replacement, roof conversion and dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue of the proposal is its effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. Smiths Walk is a cul-de-sac road which consists of a mixture of detached, semi- detached and bungalow dwellings. Whilst there is a mixture of buff and red brick, the prevailing character is generally uniform in terms of building form and materials. Some properties along the street can be seen with limited alterations, but these do not detract from the otherwise established uniform character and appearance. The appeal property is a detached dwelling that sits adjacent to a footpath which leads to a play area, which is enclosed by trees and foliage. It integrates well within a line of similar dwellings and the established character and appearance of the area. 5. The proposal would result in a prominent feature being introduced within the street scene. The alterations to the roof form would increase its pitch and height comparative to other properties. This combined with the dormer’s size and proposed positioning within the front elevation would make it a highly visible and incongruous addition to the host property leading to an obtrusive form of development. Consequently, the proposal would fail to respond to the local context and form of surrounding buildings. Whilst I note the presence of the dormer at No 1, this is to the rear of the property and therefore its impact upon the street scene is limited. Whilst reference to alterations to other properties along Smiths Walk has Appeal Decision APP/X3540/D/25/3370933 2 been made, I have not been provided with any further details regarding these. The matching materials benefit the scheme; however they do not effectively mitigate the harm that would be caused by the proposal. 6. I conclude, the proposal would have an unacceptable effect upon the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the proposal would be contrary to Policy WLP8.29 of the Adopted Waveney Local Plan (2019) which, amongst other matters, expects development to demonstrate high quality design which reflects local distinctiveness. The proposal would also fail to accord with paragraph 135 of the Framework, which requires that developments maintain a strong sense of place. Other Matters 7. Whilst the appellant refers to the lack of objections, this is not a benefit to the scheme and therefore I do not view the scheme more favourably in light of this. 8. Whilst the appellant contends that the addition of the dormer to the front elevation preserves the privacy of neighbouring gardens, I have not been presented with a scheme to demonstrate that the addition of a rear dormer would have unacceptable impacts in this regard. I therefore remain unconvinced that similar internal space could not be provided through other means that has lesser impact upon the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion and Recommendation 9. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. E Nutman APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 10. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Zoe Raygen INSPECTOR