Full refurbishment of the existing dwelling, a single-storey rear extension at ground floor and new first-floor dormers to improve internal layout and appearance, retaining residential use

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 July 2026 By Terrence Kemmann-Lane JP DipTP FRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009741 Tanglewood, 37 Church Lane, Colchester, CO3 4DX • 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 M Batterham and Ms V Pont against the decision of Colchester City Council. • The application Ref is 260373. • The development proposed is full refurbishment of the existing dwelling, a single-storey rear extension at ground floor and new first-floor dormers to improve internal layout and appearance, retaining residential use. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. It is acknowledged in the officer’s report that, whilst the extent of the proposed footprint of the proposed development is large, there would be no harm to the residential amenity of the neighbours. Thus, the main issue in this case is the effect of the proposals on the character and composition of the host dwelling in respect of scale, bulk, massing and altered form and the prevailing pattern of development within the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The site lies within an established residential area of detached dwellings set within reasonably spacious plots, constructed in traditional materials. The existing modest detached house reflects this established pattern. The proposal would extend built form across a much greater proportion of the plot, significantly altering the present form. The proposal would create a wider and more visually dominant dwelling. The existing house provides accommodation at ground and first floor levels, and reflects a relatively modest footprint relative to the size of the plot. Whilst it is addressed as 37 Church Lane, primary access is from an access road from Beech Hill which serves a number of properties in this locality. 4. The proposed ground floor rear extension is substantial in relation to the current footprint of the existing dwelling, but it would not extend any closer to the side boundaries of the curtilage and would not affect neighbouring amenity. It would have no effect on the appearance of the dwelling from the public domain. The fact that it is a substantial enlargement does not of itself justify the refusal of permission. Appeal Decision 6009741 2 5. However, the proposed enlargement of the first-floor accommodation would see the existing attractive gabled roof, with a small hipped dormer set well back from the front elevation of the house, altered by adding a very large dormer along almost the full length of the north facing roof slope and a shorter dormer on the south roof slope. These would have mono-pitched roofs sloping down a short distance below the ridge, extending almost to the verges of the existing roof. These roof forms would be substantially more prominent than the existing and would be visually unsatisfactory. They would harm the character and composition of the host dwelling, in respect of scale, bulk, massing and altered form, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the existing house and the surrounding area. 6. I accept that there would be significant advantages to the family occupiers, but these private benefits do not outweigh the pubic harm. Therefore, the appeal will be dismissed. Terrence Kemmann-Lane INSPECTOR