Erection of a loft conversion with rear dormer extension, single storey rear extension and front porch extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 September 2026 by K E Down MA(Oxon) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:15 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012445 84 The Plain, Epping, Essex, CM16 6TW • 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 Cihan Beller against the decision of Epping Forest District Council. • The application Ref is EPF/0052/26. • The development proposed is the erection of a loft conversion with rear dormer extension, single storey rear extension and front porch extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matters 2. Development comprising a front porch extension, single storey rear extension and rear dormer extension has already taken place at the site. The ground floor elements largely correspond with the submitted plans before me. However, above ground level there are material differences. In particular, the central section of the roof appears to have been replaced and altered, the roof form over the front porch does not have a gable and to the rear the dormer extension is noticeably higher than the ridge height of the two existing rear gable ended projections. Fenestration in the rear elevation of the dormer is also noticeably more extensive than on the submitted plans. It appears that the appellant erroneously believed that the works fell within permitted development rights. 3. I am required to assess the proposed development based on the plans that were submitted with the original application and refused by the Council. Therefore, in reaching my decision I am doing so on the basis of those plans and not the development that has been built. The proposed development has been implemented through the generally conforming ground floor. However, for the avoidance of doubt I will refer to the development in my decision as though it has not been built to make clear that I am referring to the submitted plans and not the built form currently on site. The differences between the submitted plans and the as-built form are too great to correct through planning conditions. 4. Since the application was determined and the appeal made, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) has been published in August 2026. Although changes to policy and guidance have been made, those that are relevant to this decision have not materially changed. I am therefore satisfied that no party will be prejudiced by my having regard to the latest version of the NPPF in reaching my decision. Appeal Decision Ref: 6012445 2 Main Issues 5. There are two main issues. Firstly, the effect of the proposed extensions on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, the street scene of The Plain and the surrounding area; and secondly, the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with respect to privacy and overlooking. Reasons 6. The appeal site comprises a detached bungalow on a corner plot towards the end of a cul-de-sac comprising mainly two storey dwellings. It has a shallow, mainly paved, rear garden and large paved area to one side. The footprint of the original bungalow is an H-shape. 7. The proposed development comprises a front extension infilling part of the H but retaining a set back from the symmetrical front projecting wings. This would have a shallow gable roof and central door with matching windows set on either side. It would be an acceptable addition, being subservient to the host dwelling and of sympathetic design. 8. To the rear, the shorter projecting wing would be extended to match the deeper one and the space between the two wings would be infilled at ground floor. These would be unobtrusive additions which I find acceptable. Above the ground floor, a wide box dormer would project from the original main roof ridge and continue with a flat roof over the whole of the ground floor rear extension to form a first floor addition. There would be no material set back from the ground floor rear elevation and although the extension would sit between the two rear-gabled projections, it’s significant depth, boxy form and lack of set back from the ground floor would make it a prominent, unsympathetic and incongruous addition. 9. Although the proposed development has been compared favourably by the appellant and Council Officers with an earlier scheme, I do not have that before me. In any case, I have judged the proposed extension on its own merits, as I am required to do. 10. In consequence, I conclude that, although the front porch and rear ground floor elements would be acceptable, the proposed loft conversion with rear dormer extension would have a materially detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policy DM9 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033, adopted 2023. This expects new development, amongst other things, to be of a high quality design and relate positively to the locality. In particular, extensions are required to respect and/or complement the form, setting and detailing of the original building. 11. Turning to the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, there are dwellings to the rear of the appeal dwelling with windows that face towards the appeal property. The Council considers that the proposed development would therefore result in a degree of overlooking and a perception of being overlooked. However, the distance of separation is such that the degree of overlooking between the appeal dwelling and neighbouring windows and gardens would not be materially greater than is frequently found in a built up area. Appeal Decision Ref: 6012445 3 12. Third party evidence raises concerns regarding overlooking and loss of privacy but these representations appear to relate to the development that has been built, with noticeably more extensive glazing in the rear elevation of the first floor element than is shown on the submitted plans. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal before me would avoid material overlooking or a harmful loss of privacy. 13. I conclude that the proposed development would have no materially harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with respect to privacy and overlooking. In consequence, it would comply with Policy DM9 insofar as it expects new development to avoid overlooking and loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers. 14. The appellant points out that the proposed development was recommended for approval by Council Officers but refused by the Planning Committee. It is argued that the development has been judged to be acceptable by professional officers and that the Planning Committee failed to support their refusal with objective evidence. The Planning Committee is entitled to take a different view from that of its officers, provided they give adequate reasons for doing so. I find that the reasons for refusal provide sufficient information to explain why the Planning Committee found the proposed development to be unacceptable. Whilst I have disagreed with that view in respect of living conditions of neighbours, I have found that in terms of character and appearance the development would be materially detrimental. 15. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. K E Down INSPECTOR