Appeal 3367155

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension, first floor front extension and hip to gable loft conversion with rear dormer and front roof lights at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, ref EPF/0775/25, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: drawing references 301,302 and 801.

The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

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.

Some works have taken place on site. It appears to relate to an extant planning permission for development similar to the appeal scheme, reference EPF/2370/24. The only difference being the addition of a first floor element to the front. Given the extant situation, the Council has not objected to the single storey rear extension, hip to gable conversion, dormer or rooflights. I have no reason to disagree. My recommendation therefore focusses on the effect of the first floor element of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area.

[address] is characterised by two storey, semi detached dwellings that have a general coherence in terms of scale and appearance although many have been altered and/or extended to the front, side and rear resulting in a degree of variation in the built form.

The proposed front extension would result in an increase in the mass of the building’s frontage. However, a hipped roof would reduce the overall bulky appearance and ensure it would be subservient to the existing ridge. It would extend less than halfway across the front of the existing property and would not protrude forwards of the existing single storey front projection. The extension would allow for much of the roof slope and front elevation of the main dwelling to remain visible, reinforcing subordination. The use of matching materials and fenestration style and pattern would ensure that the extension is sympathetic to the design features of the host dwelling and the evolved nature of the street scene generally.

With this and the above in mind, the first floor element would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. The scheme would thus comply with Policy DM9 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan (2023) which seeks development to achieve a high quality of design that relates positively to the locality. As well as respecting and complimenting the form, setting and detailing of the original buildings.

Standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and for works to be in accordance with the approved plans are necessary for enforcement purposes and the avoidance of doubt. In the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area, a condition requiring the external materials of the extensions to match those used in the existing building is necessary.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan and as such I recommend it should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, subject to the conditions set out.