To construct hip-to-gable and front and rear dormer roof extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 July 2026 by Simon Rawle BA (Hons) Dip TP Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21st August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008729 347 Daws Heath Road, Hadleigh, Benfleet, SS7 2UA • 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 Joe Giles against the decision of Castle Point Borough Council. • The application Ref is 26/0020/FUL. • The development is to construct hip-to-gable and front and rear dormer roof extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to construct hip-to-gable and front and rear dormer roof extensions at 347 Daws Heath Road, Benfleet, SS7 2UA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/0020/FUL subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: (22) 11/01 EX01 and (22) 11/01 PL02. 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension shall match those used in the existing building 3) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the first-floor window on the left flank elevation as shown on plan number (22) 11/01 PL02 has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. Preliminary Matters 2. The appellant agreed verbally at the application stage to amend the description of development from that included on the application form. As the amended description represents a more detailed and accurate description of the development subject of the appeal, I have largely adopted the amended version but have excluded reference to the proposal being part retrospective as that is not an act of development. That said I observed at the site visit that the development has commenced, and I have determined the appeal on that basis. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision 6008729 2 Reasons 4. The appeal property is located within an established residential area comprising a mix of house types including bungalows and two storey dwellings. Many of the dwellings have had extensions added and I observed at the site visit that some have front, side and rear dormers which are not an uncommon feature. Moreover, there is a mix of roof types with both hipped and gable end being evident in the street scene. 5. The appeal site forms part of a row of single storey dwellings that do not have front dormers at 335–353 Daws Heath Road (Nos 335-353). However, No 337 has had a gable end added and has a different roof form to the attached dwelling at No 335. No 341 has had a dormer added to the roof slope of its hipped roof. Moreover, No 355 has had two flat dormers added to the front roof slope. These dwellings and their amended roof profiles form the context of the existing street scene. 6. Although I accept that to a certain extent the appearance of properties on the opposite side of the road are different to the properties on the same side as the appeal site as many are detached, they nevertheless form part of the same streetscene and contribute to the existing character and appearance of the same area. Many of these properties have gable ends fronting the road. Also of relevance is the two dormers that have been added to the front roof slope of 342 Daws Heath Road (No 342). 7. Consequently, there is not a prevailing roof type and dwellings with roof extensions are a common feature in the street scene. This mix helps to define the character and appearance of the area. 8. The appeal property itself forms one half of a semi-detached pair of bungalows. The development which has commenced involves a change from a hipped to a gable end roof. Bearing in mind the existing context set out above this gable end element is acceptable and does not unacceptably disrupt the symmetry of the existing pair of dwellings. Nor does it harm the character and appearance of the area. The same is true of the rear dormer as it would be unobtrusive in the street scene. 9. I observed at the site visit that the two front dormers have not yet been added. Although this element would not be set down from the ridge of the roof, it would be set in from the new gable end and from the boundary with the attached dwelling and set up from the eaves. As a result, these dormers would sit comfortably on the roof slope and would appear as a subordinate addition to the host property. Moreover, this element would not over dominate either the host property or the attached property. 10. Overall, when considered as a total package the development would be sympathetic to local character and would not unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area 11. I therefore conclude that the development would not unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would accord with Saved Policy EC2 of the Castle Point Borough Council Local Plan which among other things seek to ensure development will be of a high standard of design will be appropriate to its setting and shall not harm the character of its surrounding. The Appeal Decision 6008729 3 development would also comply with the relevant parts of the Council’s Residential Design Guidance which seeks to ensure that the roof design of any development is compatible with the host dwelling and should be informed by the prevailing character of the area and surrounding forms of roof development. It also emphasises that dormers should be an ancillary feature and not dominate the roofscape. Other Matters 12. The appellant makes the point that due to the concessions available under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, it is possible for extensions to be undertaken at a dwelling, including hipped to gable end roof alterations without the need for the specific grant of planning permission. It is unclear whether the works already undertaken are authorised or not. However, even if they are not, I am unable to conclude, based on the available evidence, that any unauthorised development was intentional. As a result, the fact that the development has already commenced does not weigh against granting planning permission in this case. Conditions 13. As the development has commenced it is not necessary to impose a standard commencement condition. For the avoidance of doubt, it is necessary to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the appeal plans. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area it is necessary to ensure the development is constructed of appropriate materials. In the interests of protecting the living conditions of neighbours it is necessary to impose a condition to ensure the upstairs window in the left flank elevation is obscure glazed. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. Simon Rawle INSPECTOR