Appeal 3367904

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 proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

The Council appears to raise no objection to the proposed two roof lights on the rear roof slope of the dwelling. I too find this element of the proposal acceptable as rooflights would not be incongruous features within the street scene or harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

The appeal site is a two storey end of terraced dwelling situated in a prominent corner position on [address]. The surrounding area is residential in character with a mix of house types of a similar architectural style.

The proposed development would replace three existing rooflights with three dormers positioned on the street facing front roof slope. Given their height, width and overall dimensions, the proposed dormers would occupy a significant proportion of the roof and would align with the existing ridge height. Consequently, this would result in a top-heavy and bulky appearance, with the dormers appearing as dominant features that would fail to assimilate well with the character and appearance of the original dwelling. Furthermore, although the positioning of the dormers would be symmetrical with the existing first floor windows below, they would be unequally spaced within the roof slope, appearing as unbalanced additions. Appeal Planning Officer APP/M1595/D/25/3367904

The roofscape of the surrounding residential estate is characterised by pitched roofs with some sporadic roof lights. It remains largely unaltered by the presence of dormer windows. Therefore, the proposal would introduce an incongruous feature that would disrupt the presently unchanged roof profiles of the appeal dwelling and the surrounding dwellings.

The appellant has stated that the dormers would enhance usability of the attic floor space by improving headroom, light and ventilation to create additional habitable accommodation and has submitted sections illustrating the head height that could be achieved. [name] acknowledge that the proposal would optimise use of the roof space it does not outweigh the harm I have identified to the character and appearance of the appeal property and wider area, and I therefore give it only limited weight in my decision.

The appellant has drawn my attention to examples of roof alterations, suggesting that roof alterations, including dormers are an accepted feature. Regarding the examples, these are not directly comparable. The approved scheme at [address] does not involve dormer windows, while the approved scheme at [address] is for a rear dormer rather than front dormers. The approved scheme at [address] is not within the same context as the appeal scheme, while it is unclear if the housing at [address] was purpose built with front dormers. In terms of the appeal decision for [address], this scheme is not in the same local authority and was not determined against the same local policy.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. This would conflict with Policies CSTP22 and PMD2 of the Thurrock Council Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development (as amended) (2015) which seek development of a high quality design that contributes positively to the character of the area in which it is proposed. It would also conflict with the Thurrock Council Design Guide Residential Alterations and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2017) which states that roof additions will only be acceptable where high quality design is employed and where additions are in scale with the existing roof and do not spoil the existing roof form. Furthermore, it would be contrary to chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework in respect of achieving well-designed places.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I 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.