Appeal 6003141

The appeal is dismissed.

During my site visit I noted that development has already taken place and appears to be broadly in line with the submitted plans. I have assessed the appeal on this basis.

The description of the development differs from the application form to the decision notice, a change which the appellant has confirmed they did not specifically agree to. Nevertheless, I find the Council’s description to be an accurate description of the development as built, and shown in the plans before me, albeit with the absence of the word ‘retrospective’ given that this does not form an act of development.

The description within the application form referred to ‘PD loft conversion’. However, elsewhere within the evidence, the appellant explicitly accepts that the appeal development is not permitted development. The use of the application form description in my banner heading above would therefore be inaccurate and misleading.

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

The appeal property forms a semi-detached two storey dwelling within a relatively sub-urban context, comprised of similarly designed single storey and two storey properties. Despite their similarities, there is evidence of incremental change to the two storey properties along Meadway, including through side extensions and alterations to the original roof forms. Consequently, the overall street scene is not defined by strict uniformity or architectural symmetry.

Through the grant of planning permission (reference 22/01180/HHA) the Council has previously accepted the alteration of the appeal property through both two storey and single storey extensions. However, the development as built does not correspond with the approved plans and incorporates further alterations to the roof form of the dwelling, including the creation of a gable end roof and a flat roof rear dormer.

Whilst the original roof form can still be interpreted within the street scene, the deviation and loss of symmetry from the attached dwelling is significant. Nevertheless, as accepted by the Council, gable ends, and unbalanced semi-detached properties, feature elsewhere in the street scene and thus this element alone is not fundamentally harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The Council has produced supplementary planning guidance (SPG) for residential alterations and extensions (2017). Whilst this is guidance rather than adopted policy, it forms a useful tool for assessment of householder applications. The document includes specific guidance in relation to roof alterations. It specifically differentiates the considerations relating to roof dormers depending on the positioning on the roof slope, with greater flexibility for rear roof slopes which are not visible from a public space.

The SPG confirms that dormer windows on a rear roof slope are acceptable in principle albeit subject to considerations, including relating to size. The rear roof dormer occupies almost the entirety of the rear roof slope, the extent of which has been increased through the creation of the gable end from the previous hipped roof. The dormer sits awkwardly above the two-storey projection which was approved by the previous application, failing to appropriately integrate with the overall design of the dwelling.

Rather than being largely consistent with the previously approved scheme, the development as built has created an overly bulky and top-heavy addition to the rear of the dwelling. The effect of the development is further emphasized when interpreted against the simplicity of the roof form of the attached neighbour.

The appellant has drawn my attention to what they consider to be a similar form of development, visible from the rear garden of the appeal site. I observed this development during my site visit. I do not know the status of this development with respect to planning permission. In any case, it is not fully comparable to the appeal development before me, given where the neighbouring development sits within the roof slope, with roof space void of the dormer addition either side.

The harm which I have identified relates to development at the rear of the dwelling, not readily visible from the public highway or other areas of the public realm. However, the development is visible from neighbouring gardens and land. A lack of visibility within the street scene does not provide sufficient justification for allowing poor design. In this case, the harm which I have identified through the confused and contrived additions to the rear of the dwelling is fundamentally harmful to the overall design of the dwelling, including its interpretation from neighbouring vantage points.

Policy CSTP23 of the [name] and Policies for Management of Development (2015) (the Local Plan) states that the Council will protect, manage and enhance the character of Thurrock to ensure improved quality and strengthened sense of place. [name] note the lack of a specific policy requiring the maintenance of symmetry, this does not override the need for developments to understand and positively respond to local context as outlined in Policies CSTP22 and PMD2 of the Local Plan.

Based on the above, I have identified that the development has a materially harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Whilst the harm to the surrounding area is modest given the positioning of the elements of the development which I have found to be harmful, this does not outweigh the overall harm which I have identified. Consequently, the appeal development is contrary to Policies CSTP22, CSTP23 and PMD2 of the Local Plan.

The appeal site is not within a specifically designated area (such as a Conservation Area). In addition, the Council has not identified harm in respect to the effect of the development on neighbouring living conditions, highway safety or parking provision. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to reach a different conclusion on these matters. Nevertheless, these factors do not specifically weigh in favour of the appeal development.

It is presented that there are fall-back positions which exist to justify the development. The first of these referred to is the previously approved planning permission for extensions and alterations to the dwelling. However, as above, I have found that the development as built deviates significantly from the approved permission. The previously approved application would not have amounted to the harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling which I have identified above.

I understand that the appeal property has its permitted development rights intact and that the development was built on the incorrect understanding that it would fall within permitted development. [name] have some sympathy to this position, it is clear from the evidence before me that the appeal development goes beyond the allowance limits of permitted development. I have not been presented with details of an alternative scheme which would fall within the scope of permitted development. I therefore cannot be satisfied that an alternative scheme would be more harmful than the appeal development before me. On this basis, I have given little weight to the fall-back positions presented.

I conclude that the development conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.