Appeal 6003622

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site is a 2 storey building with retail units on the ground floor and residential units on the first floor, located within a local shopping area. There is a small parade of retail units adjacent to the appeal site, with other commercial and social infrastructure uses in close proximity. However, the surrounding area has a predominantly low-rise residential character.

The proposal involves the replacement of the existing pitched roof to create a new second storey to accommodate 2 residential units with private balconies. The new second storey would include a flat roof and would be clad in black/dark grey zinc. The existing brickwork on the ground and first floors would be white rendered.

The main parties both refer to a previous dismissed appeal1 at the appeal site, which involved the addition of a second storey to accommodate additional residential units. While this decision has similarities to the current appeal proposal, the extent of the built form and the pitch height shown on the plans differ noticeably from the appeal proposal before me. Therefore, the Inspector’s conclusions regarding the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area are not readily transferable to the current appeal proposal. As a result, I consider that the previous decision would only have very limited weight in my determination of this appeal. 1 Appeal Ref: APP/V1505/W/25/3362491

The appeal proposal would lead to a reduction in height compared to the current building’s pitch height, however the difference would be small and would be unlikely to read as a reduction when viewed from the wider area.

The height of the proposal would be comparable to the adjacent building. However, this building features curved parapets with regular breaks, which gives the building a less imposing appearance. The appeal proposal would introduce built form which would be more imposing in terms of its bulk and mass, compared to the existing building and adjacent building. Although the second storey would be set back from the front and side elevations, this would not alleviate the issues identified in terms of bulk and massing.

The introduction of a flat roof would be an unusual addition within the area, which would further increase the prominence of the proposal. The adjacent building also features a flat roof, but the impact of this is mitigated by the curved parapets on the principal elevation. The appeal scheme does not include such design features to mitigate its visual impact, hence its impact on the streetscene would be more pronounced.

The building is in a prominent location, being visible from all directions including to the rear of the site along [address]. This prominence would amplify the impact of the proposed addition in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the area.

The use of black/dark grey zinc cladding would exacerbate the bulk and mass of the proposal, as it would make the proposal more conspicuous and would be noticeably distinct from the materials palette of other buildings in the area, which commonly feature brick and render.

The proposed fenestration arrangement would also cause an adverse impact. The amount of fenestration on the proposed second storey addition is relatively extensive, and its asymmetrical siting compared to the existing ground and first floor fenestration would create a jarring visual effect.

In conclusion, the proposal would be an incongruous addition to the streetscene which would harm the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it would not be in accordance with Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies (2007), which seeks to prevent harm to the character of the surrounding area, including the streetscene.

The proposal would also not accord with paragraphs 131, 135 and 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework) which, amongst other things, seek the delivery of good design which reflects relevant policy and guidance and is sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment.

The appellant refers to Part 20, Class AA permitted development (PD) rights, intimating that they establish that the provision of additional storeys is an acceptable form of development. However, these PD rights require prior approval, and I am not provided with any evidence to demonstrate that this has been secured. Therefore, these PD rights have not been determinative in my decision.

The appellant refers to a scheme at [address] where the Council approved the erection of an additional floor on an existing 3 storey building to accommodate new residential units. However, no substantive details of this case are provided, and, although the appeal scheme is located on the same road, it is some distance from the cited approval and therefore consideration of issues such as character and appearance would differ. Therefore, this case would only have very limited weight in my determination of this appeal.

The appellant also refers to a previously granted permission at the appeal site for the conversion of first floor office space to residential use. However, no substantive details of this case are provided. From the brief description of the scheme that is provided, the permission seems to involve change of use and internal alterations rather than new built form, meaning the circumstances differ significantly to the appeal proposal. Therefore, this case would only have very limited weight in my determination of this appeal.

The appeal site is within the Zone of Influence for the [name] and [name] (RAMS), which provides a mechanism for protecting various habitats sites situated along the Essex coast, including Special Protection Areas and Special Areas of Conservation. However, as the appeal is being dismissed for other reasons, I have not pursued this matter any further. [name] had been minded to allow the appeal and the matter was able to be resolved through an appropriate mechanism, it would have only been afforded neutral weight in the planning balance.

Several matters were raised by interested parties, including the potential for impacts relating to parking, living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and a lack of infrastructure provision. However, as the appeal is being dismissed for other reasons, these matters do not need to be explored in detail.

I have found there would be conflict with policy which seeks to protect local character. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole.

The main parties identify that the Council are unable to demonstrate a five-year land supply of deliverable housing (5YHLS), although the precise level of undersupply is not set out by either party. Where a 5YHLS cannot be demonstrated, paragraph 11d of the Framework means that the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, and that permission should be granted unless the circumstances in paragraph 11d(i) or 11d(ii) apply.

Paragraph 11d(ii) states that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

The proposal accords with policies in the Development Plan and the Framework which encourage the supply of new housing and would assist in addressing the Council’s current housing land supply shortfall. The Framework is clear that small sites can make an important contribution to housing delivery, therefore I ascribe moderate weight to the provision of 2 additional residential units.

The adverse impacts on character and appearance would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Therefore, paragraph 11d(ii) indicates that permission should not be granted.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations which indicate a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.