Appeal 3368861

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a 2-storey detached house. It forms part of a residential cul-de-sac called “Bromley” which comprises detached houses of similar age and appearance. The property has a hipped roof which includes a pair of different sized gables to the frontage facing [address]. The site is bounded to the side by Bromley. Due to this arrangement the rear of the house and the roof are prominent features in views looking towards [address] from Bromley. Neighbouring houses include a mix of hipped and gable roofs with small dormers at first floor level.

The proposal would include the installation of a box dormer within the rear roof slope and a gabled dormer within the front slope. Due to its size, siting and appearance the former would be an overly prominent and alien feature in views along Bromley that would be out of keeping with the character of Bromley.

The proposed gable dormer at the front would be similar in size and appearance to those elsewhere in the area. However, it would be at a higher level than those on other houses and it would be set in between the pair of gables, which would create an uncomfortable juxtaposition of elements at roof level.

For these reasons I conclude that the proposed dormers would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies PMD2, CSTP22 and CSTP23 of the Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development (as amended) (2015). These policies require, amongst other things, that developments are of a high-quality design and contribute positively to the character of an area.

I note that the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2017) (SPD) provides guidance in respect of the rear dormers which includes a “3/5 rule”. This however only applies to rear roof slopes that are not visible from public space. The rear roof slope of the appeal property is visible from the neighbouring road and therefore I attach limited weight to the “3/5 rule” and conclude that the proposal fails to accord with the guidance in the SPD.

The appellant refers to the box dormer on the rear roof slope of 3 Bromley which I note is visible in the distance from a short section of [address]. This roof addition, which was granted planning permission in 2001, is somewhat of an anomaly in this location and does not form part of the prevailing character of the area. As each planning application and appeal needs to be considered on its individual merits and against current development plan policy, I attribute limited weight to the nearby box dormer.

The Appellant has raised concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the planning application and alleges a lack of engagement. As these matters do not relate to the merits of the proposal before me, I accord them limited weight.

I note that the appeal proposal has sought to respond to an earlier refusal for similar development. However, for the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.