Appeal 6002618

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site comprises a 2-storey, semi-detached dwelling with a pitched roof set within a garden plot. It is located within a residential area broadly characterised by a mixture of semi-detached dwellings and chalet bungalows. The appeal building is of a comparable appearance, scale and design to surrounding properties on [address] and contributes positively to the resulting coherent streetscene. It is the last in a short run of such properties, with a spacious gap retained between it and the corner property at [address].

In the vicinity, flat-roofed ground floor rear extensions are common and flat-roofed rear dormer windows are also evident at roof level. The attached neighbouring property at [address] (No 39) has an example of a full width 2-storey, flat-roofed rear addition which is an isolated example of such development at properties visible in the immediate streetscene.

The proposal would introduce a first-floor level extension across the full width of the building’s rear elevation. Its flat roof would interface awkwardly with the roof of the main building, resulting in a disconnected and bulky appearance. This would dominate the scale and form of the existing building’s simple architecture, resulting in harm to its appearance. The use of appropriate materials, which in addition would assist with improving the building’s thermal performance, would not be sufficient to overcome this harm.

Although the proposal replicates the scale and form of No 39’s rear extension, that addition is more discreet in views from the streetscene at [address] due to its siting in relation to surrounding buildings. In marked contrast, the length of the proposal’s side wall and its junction with the main roof would be visible from the street at the corner of [address] and [address]. Whilst the range of perspectives from which it would be visible may be limited, its incongruous appearance would nonetheless cause harm to the [address] streetscene and contribute to eroding its broad uniformity.

Even if I were to agree that the proposal would address an existing imbalance between the appeal building and No 39, this would be most apparent in views at the rear of these buildings. Those are generally private views from the occupiers of the host dwelling and surrounding occupiers. The presence of that neighbouring extension would not therefore automatically justify the proposal, particularly where harm to the streetscene has been identified.

It is suggested that alternative designs for extensions at the appeal property have been discussed with the Council and that these could result in a greater visual impact. However, I have very limited information about those alternatives and am solely considering the proposal and evidence that is before me.

Thus, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would result in conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy DM1 of the Rochford District Council Development Management Plan (2014). Amongst other things, this policy seeks to ensure that development promotes the character of the locality and positively contributes to the built environment.

The Council has not identified any concerns regarding privacy, light or outlook to neighbouring occupiers. However, this is a neutral factor in my consideration as the absence of harm does not amount to a benefit.

For the reasons given, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.