Appeal 3278609

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.

The appeal site is a semi-detached house in a row of 5 houses fronting [site address] between the residential streets of Cherry Tree and [address]. Houses within the row vary in terms of their design. Extensions and alterations to the front and rear of the host property have changed its appearance such that it is different to that of its adjoining neighbour. The rear of the appeal property includes a roof dormer which fills most of the roof plane and connects to the flat roof of a ground floor extension. The ground floor extension is stepped back where it adjoins the neighbouring property.

The proposed development comprises a first floor extension to part of the existing roof dormer. It would project back over part of the ground floor extension but not where it meets the adjoining neighbour. According to the Design and [name] submitted with the application, this is to ensure a 45 degree site line from the neighbouring property and to reflect the stepped back design of the ground floor.

The Council referred to the [name] (2018 Edition) (EDG) in its reason for refusal. Notwithstanding the main reference to dormers in the EDG relates to new housing, it advises that they should be to light the roof space rather than to provide habitable room within it which can make them over dominant. Although the existing dormer already dominates the roof an addition to it, projecting beyond the eaves level and out over the ground floor, would lead to a disjointed appearance and a bulk and form at odds with the surrounding roofscape. It would therefore harm the appearance of the host property and the wider area. Furthermore, most views of the rear ground floor are obscured by intervening boundary walls and vegetation so any attempt to reflect the design of it would not be readily apparent.

The Council are concerned that the proposed development would be highly visible from [name] and [address]. It would be visible from the rear windows and gardens of properties on both roads. It would also be partially visible from houses at the back of the turning head for [name], and from both streets across the rear gardens of properties at the junction with [site address] . I accept that boundary walls and trees limit some views of the rear roofscape, particularly outside of the winter months. Nonetheless, it would be visible to an extent that would harm both the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area and therefore conflict with Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies (2007) and the objectives of the EDG which seek to prevent development that would cause harm to the character of the surrounding area and ensure development is appropriate to its setting and context.

The appellant has provided a montage of different roof styles in the area. However, none of the examples of roof dormers extend beyond the eaves, or have additional projecting sections, as would be the case with the proposed development. As such these developments are not directly comparable with the proposal. In any case, have come to my own view regarding the development rather than relying on the approach the Council may have taken elsewhere.

I have considered all other matters raised in support of the appeal including the absence of public representations. However, for the reasons above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.