Proposed development is loft conversion with rear dormer and front skylights

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 July 2026 by P B Jarvis DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009904 153 London Road, Grays, Essex RM17 5YD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Andrei Safarian against the decision of Thurrock Council. • The application Ref. is 26/00321/HHA. • The proposed development is loft conversion with rear dormer and front skylights. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. A current appeal relating to the property for a single storey rear extension and front porch is dealt with under a separate decision letter1. Main Issue 3. The effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a modern terraced two-storey property set back behind a modest front garden area along the main London Road. It is part of a long terrace which includes a three storey element occupying a central position with two storey terraces either side. A rear vehicular access road runs along the rear (south) of the long terrace with the railway on a raised embankment beyond. 5. The proposed flat roofed, ‘box’ dormer would extend across the majority of the roof width and extend in depth to a point only just above the rear eaves. 6. The Council’s Residential Alterations and Extensions (2017) Supplementary Planning Document (RAE) requires that proposed extensions do not have an overbearing impact on adjacent properties. In respect of roof additions, paragraph 5.4.1 states that large ‘box’ dormer windows occupying the full width and height of the roof slope will not normally be acceptable. 7. The RAE at 5.4.4 also sets out some design guidelines which seek high quality design, that additions are in scale with the existing roof and do not spoil the existing roof form. Table 1 in paragraph 5.4.5 also provides specific limits on the width and height of dormers relative to the rear roof slope and their visibility within the street 1 PINS ref: 6009903 Appeal Decision 6009904 2 scene with further sketches demonstrating how this guidance can be applied in particular cases. 8. The proposed rear dormer would occupy almost the whole of the rear roofslope, the small part of the lower roofslope above the eaves would be hardly perceptible and little of the existing roof form would be discernible. As a result it would disrupt the uniform roofslope to the rear of the terrace of properties of which it is a part and due to its large size and prominence would appear as an incongruous addition as there are currently no other similar roof additions within the terrace. Contrary to the view of the appellant, it would appear as an overly large and dominating addition which, although to the rear of the dwelling, would nevertheless be highly visible within the rear setting of the terrace and from the rear access road. 9. Overall, it is concluded that the proposal would result in an unacceptable level of harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would fail to comply with Policies CSTP22 and PMD2 of the Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development (2015) (CSPMD) which seek high quality design that whilst optimising the potential of the site must also contribute positively to the sensitivity of the site and its surroundings. The proposal would also fail to comply with the guidance in the RAE. 10. It would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which, amongst other things, seeks good design that is sympathetic to local character and the surrounding built environment. Other Matters 11. The appellant has indicated that the existing property is very limited in terms of space for the needs of his family and the proposal would provide an improved practical and functional family home. Reference is made to a previously refused application for a loft conversion but no details appear to have been provided. 12. The appellant also refers to loft conversions having been allowed in nearby properties, however, all those cited are not within the same terrace of properties and thus not part of its immediate context. Whilst the nearest at No. 167 London Road can be seen within the wider area, no information has been provided regarding the circumstances in which it was permitted and from the photographic evidence it appears to have been installed some years ago, possibly prior to the adoption of the RAE. Whilst of some weight, these factors do not either individually or cumulatively outweigh the harm identified above. Conclusion 13. The appeal is therefore dismissed. P B Jarvis INSPECTOR