Demolition of single storey garage and sloping roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 March 2026 by Ian Dyer BSc (Eng) FCIHT an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002937 34 Hillside Walk, Brentwood, Essex CM14 4RB • 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 Mr and Mrs Younger against the decision of Brentwood Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/00858/HHA. • The development proposed is described as: - Demolition of single storey garage and sloping roof. Construction of two-storey side and rear extensions. Raising the roof and forming second floor accommodation with front and rear dormers. Front entrance porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. 34 Hillside Walk (No 34) is a substantial two storey detached dwellinghouse with a prominent front gable and catslide side roof. It lies in an established residential area, known as the Homesteads Estate (the estate), of detached dwellings which vary in scale and design. The dwellings are generally set back from the road behind moderate gardens. Many of the dwellings within the estate, including the neighbour at 36 Hillside Walk (No 36), have been altered over time. Nonetheless gaps in the built form provide views between dwellings into the back land and beyond. The set back of the dwellings and the gaps give the estate a feeling of spaciousness which, together with the variation in design, that provides visual interest, are positive features defining the character and appearance of the area. 4. The individuality of design of No 34 contributes positively to the architectural melange of the vicinity. There are views towards the flank and rear aspects of No 34 from the space between 32 Hillside Walk and 1 Belvedere Road. These contribute positively to the characteristics of the area that I have identified above. 5. The depth of No 34 would be increased and a two-storey side extension with a projecting gable extension added. Whilst the proposal would retain some of its existing architectural features, such as the front gable and would provide some interesting visual detailing, the existing form of No 34 would be largely subsumed by the extensions and roof alterations proposed, to produce a building of considerably greater bulk and massing. Appeal Decision 6002937 2 6. No 36 has been altered and the design of the front aspect of the proposal derives from this. The difference in building depths between No 36 and the proposal would result in the massing of the side elevations and roofs being markedly different. Further, the flank of No 36 does not have the same presence in views from Belvedere Road as that of No 34. 7. The existing catslide roof is a noticeable feature in views from Belvedere Road. However, it slopes away in such views and its impact on openness is limited by that and its unintrusive, simple form. In contrast the proposal would introduce a substantial flank wall and complex roof form of greater massing into the spacious view. Further, the form of the roof would be likely to draw the eye. The enclosure formed by the roof would be augmented by the change in levels, as the location of No 32 is significantly higher than the point from which it would be observed. This increase in dominant built form would harmfully undermine the spaciousness of the area which I have identified above as a positive feature of its character and appearance 8. Whilst there are other crown roofs in the vicinity, and the appellants have brought to my attention those on 11, 12, 14 and 16 Hillside Walk and 13, 18 and 19 South Weald Road, none of these occupy a location with such similar topographic features as to present comparable views, and thus have similar effects. In any case their presence would not justify a further, harmful, reduction in the spaciousness of the estate. 9. There are dormers of various design on the roofs of nearby dwellings. However, there are none in the immediate vicinity of No 34. Further, regardless of the presence of dormers elsewhere, I have assessed this proposal on the overall design of the roof and its effect on No 34 and the positive characteristics of the area that I have identified above. 10. Whilst the existing form of No 34 gives it an asymmetrical appearance, in contrast to the more balanced forms of nearby dwellings, and the scale of No 34 is less than that of its immediate neighbours, which have been extended, there is considerable variation in design of dwellings on the estate. The current form of No 34 is not, of itself, so incongruous as to justify poor design to alter it. 11. The proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. This would be contrary to the aims of Policy BE14 of the Brentwood Local Plan 2016-2033 (2022) which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that proposals meet high design standards that deliver attractive places and respond positively and sympathetically to their context and build upon existing strengths and characteristics, retaining features which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the local area. 12. For similar reasons the proposal would be contrary to those parts of the National Planning Policy Framework which seek to ensure that development will add to the overall quality of the area, be visually attractive as a result of good architecture, be sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment, and that development that is not well designed should be refused. The underlying aims of Policy BE14 closely accord with such aims. Appeal Decision 6002937 3 Conclusion 13. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Ian Dyer INSPECTOR