Loft conversion incorporating 1 No. front and 3 No. rear dormers Decision

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 August 2026 By Terrence Kemmann-Lane JP DipTP FRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011447 2 Bright Avenue, Witham, CM8 1ZE • 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 Ms Amie Harrington against the decision of Braintree District Council. • The application Ref is 26/00401/HH. • The development proposed is loft conversion incorporating 1 No. front and 3 No. rear dormers Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the dormers on the character of the dwelling and the streetscene. Reasons 3. The appeal site is in a residential area with a mix of detached and semi-detached dwellings of broadly similar age and appearance, with a reasonably consistent pattern of estate development with simple roof profiles. The appeal property, No.2 faces onto a small shallow crescent with 5 detached houses of very similar design. They are of 2-stories, each having a main gabled roof with a forward projecting 2- storey gable element. At present they have no openings in their roofs. 4. Number 2 is readily visible within the street scene due to its end position, with views available from the front, side and, to a degree, the rear. The flank wall of No.2 faces Seaborn Drive where, opposite the curtilage of the appeal site are 2 pairs of semi-detached houses, each having dormer windows, as has the detached house on the corner with Bright Avenue. I do not regard these as providing a precedent for additional dormers on other houses, as they were part of a carefully considered design for the estate. 5. It is relevant to note that the site does not benefit from permitted development rights. Condition 12 of planning permission 18/01912/REM removes permitted development rights under Classes A, B, C and E of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended. This condition was obviously imposed to ensure that the original design concept was protected to guard against unfortunate additions that might be harmful to the original concept and harm to residential living conditions. This condition on Appeal Decision 6011447 2 the original permission therefore means that there is no fallback from permitted development rights that can be relied upon. 6. The proposed front dormer would measure approximately 2.1m in width, 2.5m in depth and 2.1m in height and would be positioned just below the ridge of the principal roof slope, and close to the projecting gable. In this position it would be a prominent addition within the front roof plane. It would appear incongruous in the context of the simple and consistent roofscape of the immediate group, and would interrupt the balanced composition of the house and the rhythm of this part of the streetscene. 7. The three rear dormers equally spaced across the roof plane would have limited set-in from the eaves and ridge, and would occupy a substantial proportion of the rear roof slope. They would appear as dominant additions rather than minor features. In addition, the size of the dormers, the close spacing and the glazing proportions, together with the extent of fascia/walling around the window openings, would make for a bulky and top-heavy appearance which would be out of character with the simple roof form. The end position of the house results in the rear roof slope being visible in the wider public realm rather than as a wholly private elevation. 8. My conclusion is that the dormers would have a harmful effect on the character of the appeal dwelling and the streetscene. For this reason, the appeal will be dismissed. Terrence Kemmann-Lane INSPECTOR