Proposed two storey side extension, loft conversion with a rear dormer and fenestration alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 March 2026 by K Winnard LL.B Hons Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 March 2026 Appeal Ref:6004036 3 Barbara Avenue, Canvey Island, Essex SS8 0HA. • 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 Cara Chapman against the decision of Castle Point Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/0625/FUL. • The development proposed is a proposed two storey side extension, loft conversion with a rear dormer and fenestration alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host and neighbouring dwelling. Reasons 3. The appeal property (No 3) is a modest semi-detached bungalow located in a well- established residential area predominantly consisting of detached and semi- detached bungalows and chalet bungalow development. The buildings are of traditional form with a variety of roof slopes, some of which contain dormers. 4. The proposed alterations to the existing bungalow include side and rear extensions incorporating a large dormer to the rear of the dwelling. Policy EC2 of the Castle Point Borough Council Local Plan 1998 (Local Plan) seeks a high standard of design with regard to be given to the scale, siting, design, layout and external materials of any development and which should not harm the character of its surroundings. In support of this, the Council’s Residential Design Guidance, adopted 2012, (design guidance) provides that development should not result in prominent or incongruous features which distract from the visual appearance of the dwelling. 5. Notwithstanding that the extension would not project forward of the front elevation, by extending across much of the full width of the appeal site and changing the hipped roof to a gable, it would create a substantially larger and bulkier built form to No 3. As such, it would make it appear disproportionate and unsympathetic to the design of the original dwelling. This would be particularly apparent from the building’s front elevation as seen from Barbara Avenue. As such, it would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling. Appeal Decision:6004036 2 6. The proposal would develop the existing visual gap at first floor level between the appeal dwelling and its side boundary. Whilst the appellant states that the symmetry with the attached neighbouring dwelling, No 1, has already been lost due to an extension of the front gable to No 1, there remains a sense of balance between the properties particularly in their main roof form. The lack of a break or variation in the roof line would exacerbate the elongation of the property and its change in form and so would detract from the sense of balance between the pair of semi-detached bungalows. 7. I acknowledge that the design guidance does not preclude assessment of the individual merits of a scheme and its context. However, for the reasons set out above I find that the proposed scheme would be unsympathetic to the original form and appearance of the building. Nor would the proposed materials, fenestration and design features break up the scale and massing of the appeal proposal given the size and appearance of the dwelling and the plot. Whilst I accept chalet bungalows are a feature of development within the area, I did not observe any of the same scale and design as the proposal before me. 8. For these reasons I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its neighbouring property. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy EC2 of the Local Plan, details of which I have already given above, and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), which seeks amongst other matters, development to be of a high standard of design that is appropriate for its setting. Further the proposal would also conflict with RDG8 of the design guidance which seeks to promote architectural coherence to ensure new developments respect the character of the host property and area. Other Matter 9. The proposal seeks to extend and refurbish the existing property and allowing for an improvement in layout and enhanced living accommodation. Whilst these are matters in favour of the proposal, they do not outweigh the harm that I have identified above. Conclusion 10. Having regard to the above, the appeal is dismissed. K Winnard INSPECTOR