Single and two storey rear extension, loft conversion including a rear facing dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 April 2026 by J Kirkaldy BSc (Hons) PGDip MRTPI Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005577 3 Harcourt Avenue, Dovercourt, Essex, CO12 4NT • 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 Sam and Maddie Warburton against the decision of Tendring District Council. • The application Ref is 26/00050/FULHH. • The development proposed is a single and two storey rear extension, loft conversion including a rear facing 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 is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. The appeal site comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. It is located within a residential area characterised by predominately semi-detached and terraced dwellings that are relatively consistent in terms of their original uniform design and appearance, although several of the properties have rear flat roofed single storey extensions. 5. The proposed dormer would be located on the rear roof slope of the dwelling and would therefore not be widely visible within the street scene of Harcourt Avenue. There would, however, be partial views from Iceni Court, a block of flats located to the side and rear of the adjoining neighbouring property, which occupies a lower ground level than the appeal property. 6. The dormer would also be visible from the rear gardens of neighbouring properties. I observed that the surrounding roofscape remains largely unaltered. In this context, the proposed dormer would appear as a visually discordant feature, at odds with the established pattern of development in the locality. Appeal Decision 6005577 2 7. The dormer would extend close to the roof ridge and would be set in slightly from the eaves. It would extend almost the full width of the roof slope and would result in a substantial addition to the roof plane resulting in the property appearing top heavy. It would fail to achieve an appropriate degree of subordination to the host dwelling given its scale, siting and design. Whilst the use of matching materials would contribute to assimilating the proposal into the roof space of the host dwelling, these aspects do not overcome the adverse effects outlined above. 8. The proposed two-storey rear extension would occupy an existing patio area. It would infill an area to the side of the existing side projection which extends into the rear garden. The flat roof of the proposed two-storey rear extension, which would project above the eaves height of the host dwelling would appear incongruous when viewed alongside the prevailing pitched roofs of surrounding two-storey dwellings. As a result, the extension would fail to integrate successfully with the rear of the host property or with the overall appearance of the semi-detached pair. 9. When considered cumulatively, the proposed developments would appear dominant from public viewpoints despite being at the rear, and would significantly alter the original form, character and appearance of the dwelling. The additions would result in a top-heavy, unbalanced and visually incongruous form of development that would appear unduly prominent within its surroundings, particularly when viewed in the context of prevailing roof forms of adjoining and nearby dwellings. 10. Given that the dwelling forms part of a semi-detached pair, the proposed dormer and two-storey flat roof extension would disrupt the visual balance of the roofscape and rear elevation, causing harm to the established character and appearance of the pair. Furthermore, the difference in site levels, most notably in relation to Iceni House, would serve to increase the perceived scale and prominence of the development. 11. Consequently, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Therefore, it would conflict with Policy SP7 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013 – 2033 and Beyond Section 1: North Essex Authorities’ Shared Strategic Section 1 Plan (2021) and Policy SPL3 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013 – 2033 and Beyond Section 2 (2022) which seek development to make a positive contribution to the quality of the local environment and protect or enhance local character. Other Matters 12. The appellants contend that the majority of the proposed two-storey extension and rear dormer can be constructed under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) establishing a fallback position which makes the appeal proposal acceptable by comparison. 13. In considering the weight to be afforded to a fallback, I must be satisfied that there is a real prospect, a greater than theoretical possibility, that the development would be carried out if the appeal were to be dismissed. 14. The appellants have provided floor plans indicating the extent of two storey extension that could be achieved under permitted development, however it is unclear whether there is a greater than theoretical possibility of the fallback position being implemented, as it would not provide the amount of floorspace desired. Even Appeal Decision 6005577 3 if that had been demonstrated, the limitations of the legislation mean that a two- storey extension built as permitted development could not be as deep, wide or high as the proposal before me. Furthermore, it could not join up with a dormer constructed under permitted development, as is proposed here. Therefore, any such scheme would be less bulky and achieve greater separation than the appeal scheme, and would consequently be less harmful. Consequently, the fallback position does not outweigh the harm I have identified from the appeal proposal and does not justify granting planning permission. Conclusion and Recommendation 15. The development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised I conclude that there are no material considerations that justify granting permission contrary to the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. Juliet Kirkaldy APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 16. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. L McKay INSPECTOR