Appeal 3322112

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issues to be the effect of the proposed side extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding streetscene.

At the time of my site visit the proposal was substantially completed externally. The appeal site lies within a predominately residential area characterised by a mix of two-storey and chalet style semi-detached houses and bungalows. The appeal property is a semi-detached property of original traditional design. It lies in a prominent location with open space and a public footpath to the side of the property. On the nearby two-storey properties, traditional gables and hipped roofs are predominant characteristics in the area. Half-hipped roofs are not a characteristic.

There is a relevant history of development proposals for this site. A certificate of Lawful Development (21/00150/LDCP) was granted in March 2021 for a proposed loft conversion incorporating a hip to gable end roof alteration and rear box dormer. The Council confirmed in March 2021 that a proposed five metre deep single-storey rear extension did not require prior approval (21/00175/PDPA). Planning permission was granted for a two-storey side and rear extension in June 2021 (21/00615/FULL). The proposal before me is a combination of these proposed developments, with some variation. [name] have noted all variations, the most relevant to this appeal is the modification to the roof to create a half-hipped roof above the proposed side extension. This roof configuration has been constructed together with a change to a gable on part of the roof of the original house. I note that the reason for this design is for practical reasons to allow some headroom for access to the loft extension.

From my observations, due to the design, scale and siting of the half-hipped roof over the two-storey side extension and its relationship with the hip to gable alteration to the roof over the original dwelling, I consider that the side extension appears as a contrived and incongruous addition. This roof configuration is not in keeping with the scale and traditional design of the original roof on the appeal dwelling or surrounding dwellings. In such a prominent location in the streetscene, for the same reasons, this has an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding streetscene.

In reaching my decision, I have had regard to all matters raised including the fallback position with regard to the planning history described above. This is a material consideration. Nevertheless, implementation of those development proposals would not result in the roof configuration currently constructed and would not result in the harm I have identified above. Therefore, I have attributed limited weight to this matter in my determination of this appeal.

For the reasons stated above and having taken into consideration all matters raised, I conclude that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding streetscene. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to saved Policy BAS BE12 in the Basildon Local Plan Saved Policies (2007) where it seeks to ensure that new residential development does not harm the character of the surrounding area. I consider this policy to be broadly in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly where the Framework seeks to ensure good design that is sympathetic to local character.