Appeal 3375646

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a rear roof dormer extension at [site address] , Essex [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01155/FULL, 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 drawing number PL01 [name].

The description of development in the heading above and the formal decision has been taken from the planning application form. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development as set out in the decision notice has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the description given on the original application form. I do not consider that this has prejudiced any of the parties and I have proceeded with the appeal on this basis.

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

The appeal site consists of a semi-detached dwelling fronting [address] with a ground floor element extending to the rear. The dwelling is single-storey in scale with accommodation at first floor level. An existing flat roof dormer occupies the rear roof slope. Development in the area typically comprises single-storey dwellings fronting the roads. Dwellings within [address] have undergone alterations, particularly with additions to the roof slopes. Flat roof dormer additions of varying sizes are prevalent in the area, including to the rear roof slopes.

The proposal is for an extension to the rear dormer above the existing ground floor rear projection. The development would retain the overall form of the dwelling through its position set in from the eaves and set back from the rear elevation of the ground floor projection. However, the enlargement would increase the bulk at first floor level, increasing the scale of built form at first floor level.

The visual effect of the enlarged dormer in views from [address] would be limited due to the discreet position to the rear of the dwelling. Nevertheless, the scale of the development would be appreciable in views from the rear of properties in the locality and in glimpsed views from [address]. Although large, the flat roof and material finish would reflect that of the existing dormer and other dormer additions in the locality. Moreover, the proposal would be viewed within the context of the existing enlargement and development to the rear of neighbouring properties. Consequently, the level of harm to the overall character and appearance of the area would be limited.

I conclude that the proposal would not cause material harm to the character and appearance of the area. The development therefore accords with Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies 2007, which states that the alteration and extension of existing dwellings will be refused if it causes material harm to the character of the surrounding area, including the street scene.

Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) introduced a statutory framework for biodiversity net gain, and it applies to all planning applications for non-major development submitted on or after 2 April

Under the statutory framework, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the [name] (BGC), which requires that at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value is met. However, the Planning Practice Guidance states that the BGC does not apply to householder development, such as the appeal proposal.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. This is in the interests of certainty.

The Council suggested a condition requiring the materials to be used to match those of the existing dwelling. As the plans state that the materials are to match the existing dwelling, an additional condition would be unnecessary.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.