Appeal 6001837

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a hip-to-gable roof conversion, extension of existing single-storey rear extension, first-floor rear extension, and two-storey side extension at [site address] , Thurrock [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01130/HHA, 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 nos Location Plan, 15.349.020 ISSUE 1 [name], 15.349.000 ISSUE 1 [name], 15.349.003 ISSUE 1 [name], 15.349.004 ISSUE 1 [name], 15.349.005 ISSUE 1 [name].

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

The description of development in the banner heading above has been taken from the planning application form. However, it does not refer to the two-storey side extension or hip-to-gable roof extension. I have therefore used the description from the Council’s decision notice in my decision. The appellant has advised that although they cannot locate the agreement with the Council to change the description, they agree that it does reflect the proposal and have also used this description in their appeal form.

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

The appeal site relates to a two-storey house. It occupies a plot that sits at an angle as it follows the curvature of the road. There is some spacing to the side, creating a gap between the house and its neighbour, which is typical of the street pattern. Even with this gap, any sense of openness is limited, and the site does not appear as a prominently open plot. It does not form a matching pair with the adjoining house, as their roof forms are different.

The proposed hip-to-gable roof extension would establish a clearly defined primary roof form, ensuring that the main roof remains the dominant element of the house. The hipped roof to the two‐storey extension would then read as a secondary addition, allowing the additional built form to integrate without competing with or overwhelming the main roof structure. Although the roof forms would differ, the pitches and junctions would be simple and coherent, and the two elements would be readily understood as distinct but related components of the house. In this regard, I do not find that the proposed roof configuration would be overly complex.

The side element of the proposed two-storey extension would extend beyond the existing side elevation. However, its modest width ensures that some spacing between the house and its side boundary would remain. Although the gap would be smaller, this retained spacing would continue to reflect the established street pattern. Contrary to the Council’s concerns, the proposal would not disrupt any meaningful symmetry with the adjoining house. This is because any real sense of symmetry and balance between the houses has already been eroded by the neighbour's hip-to-gable roof extension and rear dormer window. Given this existing lack of uniformity, the proposal would not cause harm to its visual relationship with the adjoining house.

The proposed two-storey extension would be well setback from the front elevation, and its roof would be set down from the main roof ridge. As such, it would be a subservient addition to the house, meeting the design principles set out in the [name] & [name] 2017. The main bulk of the proposed extension would not be visible from the road, but there would be some limited views of the side element and its roof. Given that the proposed extension would be constructed in materials that match the existing house, as would the hip-to-gable roof extension, this cohesive use of materials would ensure that the proposal reads as a sympathetic and well-integrated addition to the appeal site. Consequently, the proposal would not appear as visually intrusive in the streetscene.

The Council have raised no objection to the proposed single-storey rear extension. Based on the evidence before me and my findings from my site visit, I have no reason to reach a contrary view.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not cause harm to the character or appearance of the area. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policies CSTP22, CSTP23, and PMD2 of the [name] and Policies for Management of Development (as amended) 2015. These policies, amongst other things, require development to be designed to respect distinct positive characteristics of the area and to contribute positively to the character.

I have imposed the statutory implementation condition [1], along with a condition listing the approved plans to provide certainty [2]. A matching materials condition is also necessary to ensure the external materials of the proposal match the existing materials to protect the appearance of the house and the area [3].

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.