Appeal 3357645

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

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

The appeal dwelling is located in an attractive verdant residential area, characterised by its large, detached dwellings, with substantial gaps between each. They are set back from a mature tree-lined verge and pavement. Buildings are individual and include elements of mock-tudor, render, hung tiles, double roof pitches and various dormer window designs. The majority incorporate, through these elements, a strong impression of relief and spaciousness which lends a pleasant consistency and quality to the street scene and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The various elements of the appeal scheme would combine to result in something of a block like building, lacking relief and thus visual interest. This would jar against the qualities of the street scene as I have set them out. Furthermore, the proposals would extend closer to the boundary with Number 32, resulting in a narrowing of the existing gap and thus appearing cramped, reducing the pleasant spaciousness. Similarly, several additions are proposed on the rear elevation, including two large flat roofed dormer windows, a two-storey extension and single storey element across the remainder of the rear elevation that enables balconies at the first-floor level, consequently resulting in bulky additions, out of proportion with the host dwelling.

Number 12 [site address] (No 12) has been extended and was, it would seem, a remodel project akin to the appeal scheme. I have acknowledged the street scene has distinction and variety, such that the works to No 12 were deemed acceptable by the Council. That said, such variety would not, as I have explained, be sufficient to accommodate the result of the proposed development. Number 46 was a replacement dwelling and whilst of some substance and scale has two forward projecting gables, part hips to the roofscape, a recessed first floor section to the front and two dormer windows in the forward facing roof. These elements combine to reflect the street scene’s quality in design relief.

In regard to the scheme at appeal for Number 32, this has since been allowed and whilst the changes thereto were evidently substantial, there is no indication that it was allowed for the same reasons that the appeal scheme before me is being resisted. It was considered on its own merits and context, as has this appeal. Taken together, this and the above examples do not change my findings.

Consequently, the appeal proposals would harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, they would conflict with Policy DM9 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan 2023 as the proposed extensions would fail to achieve a high-quality design, relate positively to their context, or respect and complement the form, setting, period and detailing of the host dwelling. In addition, the appeal proposals would conflict with paragraphs 131 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) due to their detrimental impact on the character of the surrounding built development.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no sufficiently weighty material considerations to indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.