Appeal 6002089

The appeal is dismissed.

I note that the development is already underway and approaching completion. However, there are some differences between the plans considered by the Council and the work which has been undertaken, including the rear windows and dormer finishing materials, and the Council’s second reason for refusal reflects this. The appellant submitted revised proposed elevations with the appeal documents which show these amendments together with changes to the finishing materials of the entire dwelling which were not included on the original plans or description. My consideration of the amended plans could cause procedural unfairness or prejudice to interested parties. Therefore, my decision is based only on the originally submitted drawings.

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

The appeal site comprises a sizeable two storey detached dwelling in an area characterised by substantial detached houses of varying design. Whilst many have been extended over time and there are numerous projecting gables, front dormers are not a common feature. The front of the dwelling has brick walls, with part of it featuring a distinctive catslide roof which accommodates a modest hipped roof dormer. Similar to many other properties in the vicinity, a roadside hedge encloses the site frontage, punctuated by a vehicular access.

The Council previously approved a side extension1 and the proposal now includes a large front dormer on the extended catslide roof. The hipped roof dormer takes 1 Planning application ref: 24/00625/HHA up much of the width of the side extension, aligning with the lower-level wall and extending significantly higher than the existing dormer.

The appellant indicates that the new dormer is not designed to be subservient, but is intended to respond to the surroundings, including the neighbouring property, and to provide for the occupant’s needs. However, due to its height and width, the dormer is of substantial scale. It adds significant bulk and mass to the roof, giving this side of the house a top-heavy appearance and detracting from the catslide roof form. Therefore, it contravenes guidance in the [name] 2018 which states that dormers should be a minor incident to the roof plain.

Further, the new dormer has higher eaves and is considerably larger than the existing modest dormer, appearing incongruous and wholly out of proportion with this existing roof feature. The proposed wall cladding materials would be at odds with the front brick walls, exacerbating the discordant appearance of the new dormer. Whilst the boundary planting provides some screening, the dormer appears out of keeping in views from the road above the hedge and through the access driveway.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal harms the character and appearance of the area. This is contrary to Policy BE14 of the Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 which requires proposals to meet high design standards including by responding sympathetically to their context, amongst other things.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.