Appeal 6005347

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the architectural integrity of the host property and the thereby the character and appearance of the wider area.

The appeal property, [site address] is a two-storey detached dwelling with a detached garage. It is one of a small enclave of residential properties accessed off [address].

The development is characterised by a of mix detached and semi-detached dwellings. Nevertheless, there is some uniformity to neighbouring dwellings in their form and architectural detailing, and thereby the established overall character of the development. The properties in this section of [address] also feature solar panel installations on their rear roof slopes.

The appellant proposes the conversion of the existing loft space along with the construction of a large flat roofed box dormer on the rear roof slope, and the installation of two rooflights in the front roof slope to form a new master bedroom suite.

The Council states in its evidence that the principle of residential extensions and alterations are acceptable, subject to complying with relevant development plan policies. I also note that there is an extant planning permission for a loft conversion, local planning authority Ref: 25/00135/HHA. However, that permission did not include for a rear dormer as now proposed.

The Thurrock Design Guide - [name] and Alterations and [name] - Supplementary Planning Document ([name] 2017) (SPD) provides design advice in respect of dormers. It states that roof conversions and additions will only be acceptable where high quality design is employed, where additions are in scale with the existing roof, and where the addition does not spoil the existing roof form.

The dormer would be located on the rear roof slope, and due to the location of the dwelling, its relationship to neighbouring properties, and as the rear of the house faces directly onto mature woodland there would be limited views of the dormer from the public realm. Nevertheless, from my observations on site I consider that the proposed dormer falls to be considered under the heading – visible but less prominent side or rear roof slope as set out in Table 1: [name] and Roof-lights. In this case the SPD advises that dormers should generally occupy no more than one half the width of the roof. The approximate width of the proposed dormer would be about 6.2 metres or so and therefore would occupy considerably more than half the width of the roof slope. Accordingly, the design of the dormer would consequently not accord with the design guidance in the SPD.

The SPD is, however, as identified by the appellant, while a material consideration is only guidance and it should not be applied to each and every property prescriptively to the exclusion of all other factors, including the physical circumstances and context of a site.

Nevertheless, in this context, due to the dormers size, form and relationship to the existing roof slope it would appear as a visually large, bulky, bland and unattractive addition to the roof.

In addition, the proposed fenestration would, as designed have no regard to the position of the existing windows or the scale and proportion of what in this case would be secondary second floor windows. These considerations may be considered of limited importance in the overall design. Nevertheless, the poorly designed fenestration here would further detract from the overall composition of the design.

The dormer would be a dominant, bulky and visually incongruous feature causing significant harm to the architectural integrity of the host property. Further, due to being out of scale with the existing roof it would serve to harm both the appearance of the existing roof and the three-dimensional form and overall appearance of the host property. As such the development as designed would not be of a high-quality design.

In addition, I appreciate that the rear of the property is not generally open to public view. Nevertheless, I consider, given the overall uniformity of the design of the surrounding dwellings, the dormer would cause harm to the overall character and appearance of the estate, where large dormers such as that proposed are not common features.

I note from the evidence before me that it is proposed that some, if not all, the solar panels currently fitted to the rear roof slope would potentially be installed on the roof of the dormer. No detail has been provided as to how this would be achieved. However, given the harm that the proposed dormer itself would cause I believe that the addition of solar panels, particularly if set at an angle to catch the sun would add further to the visual harm I have already identified. I am therefore not persuaded that, if allowing the appeal, this is a matter that could be conditioned.

I conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed dormer would cause significant harm to the architectural integrity of the host property and the thereby the character and appearance of the wider area. The proposal would therefore fail to accord with the objectives of Policies CSTP22, CSTP23 and PMD2 of the Thurrock Local Development Framework - [name] and Policies for Management of Development (as amended) ([name] 2015), as well as the SPD as they relate to, amongst other things, a requirement for new development to achieve high standards of inclusive design.

I note that the Council in its consideration of the planning application did not identify any harmful impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers as a result of the proposed development and found the development acceptable in terms of parking provision. Based on what I have seen and read I would not disagree with its findings on these issues. Furthermore, I note that there have been no neighbour objections to the proposal. However, the absence of harm is a neutral factor in my considerations and, as such, I have given these matters very little weight in my

I appreciate that the extant planning permission ref: 25/00135/HHA represents a fallback position in the event that I dismiss this appeal. To my mind, as the roof conversion previously approved does not include the dormer now proposed I give limited weight to this consideration in the planning balance.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.