Appeal 3270053

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

[site address] is a detached two storey dwelling within a residential housing estate. The estate is characterised by predominately detached two storey dwellings of differing designs and styles, which results in an organic form of development. As such, the group of dwellings are not uniform or symmetrical, and this contributes to the overall variety of the street scene. There is a cycle/footpath which is accessed from [address] and enables views of the rear roof slopes of properties along [address], including the appeal site.

The proposed rear dormer would be sited centrally within the roof slope and would be inset from each end of the roof, set below the ridge of the main roof and would face onto the rear garden of the property.

Pedestrians and cyclists travelling along the footpath, despite the presence of landscaping, have a clear view across the rear roof slopes of the properties in [address] and therefore the rear roof slope should be categorised, under the [name] and [name] 2017 (RAE), as a rear roof slope that is visible but less prominent. In these circumstances Table 1 of the RAE confirms that dormer windows are acceptable in principle where the proposal avoids overlooking, subject to size restrictions.

As a result of its overall width, occupying more than one half of the width of the roof, the development would not accord with the requirements of the RAE and its size and scale would be particularly dominant when viewed from the public realm. Although other dormer windows were visible in close proximity to the site, these examples confirm that such dormer extensions can be detrimental to the character and appearance of an area and therefore should not be used as a reason to allow a similar development such as that before me.

The proposed dormer window would fail to contribute positively to the area and as a result of its overall size and scale, would be detrimental to the overall character and appearance of the existing dwelling.

In conclusion, I have identified harm from the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to policies CSTP22 and PMD2 of the Thurrock Local Development Framework, [name] and Policies for Management of Development 2015. These policies require development to be of a high quality design which contributes positively to the character of the area. The development would also fail to accord with the guidance contained within the RAE.

The proposal also includes alterations to the existing roof, resulting in a hip-to-gable conversion. Having regard to the predominant character of the neighbouring properties, with gable roofs being particularly common I find no harm in respect of this element of the proposal or to the introduction of front rooflights and I note the Council raised no objection in this regard either.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.