Appeal 3371857

The description of the development on the Council’s decision notice was single storey side and rear extensions, hip to gable roof extension, front and rear dormers. I consider that to be a more accurate description and so have determined the appeal on that basis.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey side and rear extensions, hip to gable roof extension, front and rear dormers at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application ref 25/00439/FULL, subject to the following conditions:

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

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 01 [name], 02 [name] & 04 [name].

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

The bungalow lies within a road where there is variety in the design and scale of properties, and where there have evidently been changes to many of those properties over the years. I saw at my site visit that many bungalows have seen extensions to their roofs with changes to original hipped roofs and the insertion of dormer windows. This includes a number of properties in close proximity to the appeal property, together with the adjoining semi-detached bungalow of No. 29. These changes to properties, and the differing original design of buildings, gives a diverse character. [address] slopes down to the west, and this changing landform brings further variety in the street scene and the visual relationship between buildings.

The proposals in this appeal would see the extension of the bungalow to the side and then a new gable-ended roof above that, with front and rear dormers in the new roof. There would also be a rear extension. The combination of the side extension, new roof form, and the dormer would reduce the spacing to the adjoining property of No. 33, and would lead to a greater mass of built form at roof level. However, the distance retained between the two properties would remain reflective of the wider area.

The additional massing at roof level would fit comfortably between two properties that also have hipped ends and front dormers, as do others in the vicinity. The change in levels between the appeal property and its neighbour would further ensure the impact at roof level would not be imposing to the area, since that change would help retain variation in the street scene when viewing along the road.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a similar form of development that was permitted by the Council at No. 35. This is very close to the appeal site, and resulted in a pair of bungalows (with No. 33) that is not balanced, but I consider there is no harm arising from that appearance: it reflects the diversity in the wider area I have observed earlier. The extension to No. 35 was permitted under the same development plan policies and in my view the replication of this scale and design of work at No. [address] to extend the subject property.

On the main issue it is therefore concluded the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Thus, it would be consistent with the objectives of saved Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon District Local Plan (2007), which requires extensions to existing dwellings to not materially harm the character of the surrounding area, including the street scene.

Planning permission is granted. I have attached the standard conditions requiring matching materials and for works to be undertaken in accordance with the approved drawings, to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development.