Appeal 6004168

The appeal is dismissed.

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

[site address] (No 142) is a chalet-style bungalow with large dormer windows to front and rear. It lies within an area that is predominantly residential, containing a mix of one and a half and two storey dwellings of varying design, typically set back off the road behind generous front gardens. Roof styles vary, but are usually pitched, often with projecting gable ends facing the street and many contain dormers. Overall, the character and appearance of the area is one of suburban domesticity, with varying, but simple and uncomplicated architecture that nonetheless provides visual interest. The unremarkable appearance of No 142 makes in neutral contribution towards the street scene of the locality.

Whilst there are examples of front gables and dormer windows in the street scene the proposed projecting gable incorporates a box bay window, which visually increases the bulk of the projecting gable element. This together with the unbalancing effect of the extensive sloping side roof would produce an overall imbalance and incongruity with the simple form of the host dwelling and in comparison with that of nearby dwellings.

To the rear, because of their scale, the projection of the largest of the gables beyond the other elements and complex, interlocking roof form the rear additions would appear as a bulky, incongruous and disproportionate addition dominating the rear façade of the building. This would be harmful to the simple architectural style which is an important component of the character of the area.

Whilst there is variation within the existing street scene in regard to architectural styles, and this includes a number of additions at first floor and roof level, none create a similar disproportionate and incongruous building form as that proposed.

[name] 12 is well set back off the road, its front garden is largely open, and the proposal would be clearly visible from the street. Similarly, whilst views of the rear elevation of the dwelling would be restricted to localised views from neighbouring gardens, the presence of the alterations would be notable from such vantage points.

No 12 appears in an urban setting, and the locality is not subject to specific protection. Over time, the alteration and extension of homes would be anticipated as occupiers needs change. However, this does not justify poor design, as is the case here.

The proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area. It would thus be contrary to the aims of Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon District Local Plan Saved Policies (2007), which seeks, amongst other things, to protect the character the area within which proposals lie, including the street scene.

For similar reasons the proposal would be contrary to the aims of paragraphs 135 and 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek to ensure that development will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, be visually attractive as a result of good architecture, be sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment, and that development that is not well designed should be refused. The underlying aims of Policy BAS BE12 are in close accordance with these.

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. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.