Two-storey side extension with new raised roof with loft conversion, front porch and garage conversion, addition of porch canopy and alterations to entrance door, increase in height of garage and part conversion into habitable space, and alterations to fenestration

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 June 2026 By Terrence Kemmann-Lane JP DipTP FRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008805 33 Common Road, Ingrave, Essex, CM13 3QL • 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 Ingram against the decision of Brentwood Borough Council. • The application Ref is 26/00115/HHA. • The development proposed is a two-storey side extension with new raised roof with loft conversion, front porch and garage conversion, addition of porch canopy and alterations to entrance door, increase in height of garage and part conversion into habitable space, and alterations to fenestration. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the impact of the proposed rear dormer on the existing dwelling and the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal dwelling is a detached property, under a hipped roof with a short ridge running at right-angles to the frontage. It has a garage on the west side, which abuts the garage of the nearest neighbour at No.31. It is located on a large corner plot at the junction of Common Road with Middle Road. The neighbouring dwellings within the vicinity are mostly two storey, with some bungalows within the wider area. 4. The proposal seeks to add a 2-storey extension to the side, set about 1.3m from the boundary with the highway of Middle Road. The roofs would be gabled with an increase the existing ridge height by 0.5m. The extension would be set in from the existing front elevation by about 0.5m, and its ridge set some 0.3m below the main ridge. Here would be flat roofed dormer set in the rear roof slope that would extend to within 0.7 m of the verge at each end. There would be a porch and alterations to the existing fenestration, but it is the rear box dormer that is the controversial element. 5. The break back on the front elevation and the lower Ridge line to the side extension makes the proposal from the front appear subordinate to the existing dwelling. However, because the appeal site is on the corner of Common Road with Middle Road, the whole of the proposed development is clearly in view from the public domain. When viewing the site from Middle Road, the flat roof rear dormer window Appeal Decision 6008805 2 is a feature that overwhelms the entire rear elevation of the dwelling. This is out of scale with the dwelling, as proposed to be enlarged. 6. There are examples of rear dormers in the area, which may well have been achieved through permitted development, but they are generally relatively inconspicuous. In this case, the proposed rear dormer amounts to poor design, and is particularly objectionable because it is so conspicuous. It would have a detrimental impact on the existing dwelling and the character and appearance of the area. For these reasons the appeal will be dismissed. Terrence Kemmann-Lane INSPECTOR