Appeal 6005441

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for improvements and extensions at [site address] , Essex [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2508/25, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 2322-500.27; 2342-202.27; 2342-200.27.

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The extensions hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the windows in the north-east-facing dormers have been fitted with obscured glazing with a minimum Pilkington privacy level 3 obscurity (or equivalent), and no part of those windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

Planning permission was previously granted for improvements and extensions1 to the appeal property. At the time of my site visit construction work was underway and the exterior appeared to be mostly complete. However, a larger side dormer to the one approved had been constructed, the retention of which is the subject of a separate appeal2.

This appeal proposal would see the larger side dormer replaced with two smaller dormers. The submitted existing drawings show the appeal dwelling as it was before the previously approved extensions. I have therefore proceeded on the basis that this current appeal is part-retrospective. 1 Planning application ref. EPF/1780/23 2 Appeal ref. APP/J1535/W/25/3376480

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

The appeal property comprises a bungalow on a corner plot in a residential area. There is a wide range of designs and materials to the dwellings along [address] and in [address] to the rear of the appeal site. Several of the properties have front or rear dormers of varying designs, however there are very few side dormers in the locality.

The proposed dormers which would replace the larger dormer would match the modest size and design of the approved side dormer. The three dormers would be centrally positioned and would not take up an excessive amount of the roof slope. Overall, the three dormers would have a balanced appearance which would not unduly dominate the roof slope. Cumulatively, the dormers on all four roof slopes would be of an appropriate size, position and design for their respective roof slopes and thus would not result in a cluttered appearance.

For these reasons, the proposal would accord with Policy DM9 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033 [name]. This policy requires, amongst other things, for development to relate positively to its context and contribute to the distinctive character of the local area.

The submitted drawings show that windows in the three north-east-facing dormers would be obscure-glazed, which would prevent any harm through the overlooking of neighbouring properties. A condition could secure this obscure-glazing.

The Council has suggested a series of conditions, which I have considered against the tests set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. In some cases, I have edited the suggested condition to improve precision and enforceability.

I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans to provide certainty. A condition requiring the external materials to match the existing dwelling, as per the planning application form, is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. A condition requiring the windows in the three north-east-facing dormers to be obscure-glazed and non-opening under 1.7m above floor-level is necessary in the interests of the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings.

The existing larger dormer appears to be unauthorised and subject to an enforcement enquiry. Furthermore, the proposal would see this larger dormer replaced with the proposed smaller dormers. It is therefore not necessary to attach a condition requiring the removal of the larger dormer.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.