Appeal 3348535

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene.

The appeal property is a semi-detached chalet bungalow in a residential cul-de-sac of mixed property types. Bungalows and chalet bungalows are the predominant dwelling type near the appeal property. The surrounding area is residential in character.

As well as No 23, a number of other dwellings within this part of [address] have front-facing dormer windows, making this a characteristic feature within the street scene. Some are box dormers, which are materially larger than the existing or proposed dormer on the appeal property. However, a common feature of these larger dormers is that they have flat roofs, thereby reducing their bulk and prominence on the front roof slopes.

By contrast, the appeal proposal would widen the existing dormer while retaining the existing pitched roof form. Despite the matching materials, the larger dormer with the same roof form would contrast unfavourably with the examples of larger dormers nearby with flat roofs. In particular, the overall bulk and scale of the extended dormer with this roof form would result in it being a dominant and incongruous feature in the street scene. Moreover, the neighbouring dwelling, No 25, has a dormer of similar size and roof form to that at the appeal property. The unfavourable contrast between the smaller dormer at No 25 and the extended dormer on the appeal property would be particularly marked due to their proximity to each other.

The appellants draw attention to development at Nos 17 and [address] that was permitted on appeal1. While this involves alterations to the roofscape across both properties, these do not appear to involve a similar form of dormer as currently proposed. As such, the development that has occurred at these neighbouring properties is not directly comparable to the appeal proposal. Other properties referred to in other roads in the surrounding area do not form part of the same street scene within [address].

Accordingly, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed dormer extension would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. It is, therefore, contrary to Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon Local Plan Saved Policies (2007), which requires that alterations and extensions to existing dwellings should not harm the character of the surrounding area, including the street scene. It is also contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, which advocates good design.

I acknowledge that the proposed extension is intended to create additional living space. However, these personal circumstances do not overcome the harm and conflict with development plan policy that I have found would result from the proposal.

For the reasons given it is concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.