Appeal 6006628

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal property lies distinctly within a row of quite modest bungalows on the edge of the village. The properties are visible in long views on the approach to the village above the level of the road, with their spacing and the surrounding open countryside contributing to an impression of rurality. The roof forms at the nearby bungalows vary to some degree but there is a common feature of hipped and pitched roofs, generally of quite a low height and restricted building mass at upper levels of the bungalows.

There are properties further from the appeal site with higher and larger roofs which, along with the decisions permitting them provided referred to by the appellant, I have considered and viewed at my visit. They are discernible from the appeal property by virtue of their location, respective positions in relation to other buildings, and intervening gaps, so are consequently seen within their established landscape features. They are not viewed in the closer visual context of the appeal property, which is part of a distinctive established modest row and has a character and appearance reflecting this.

The proposed works would infill an existing courtyard area with a new roof form across the bungalow. This roof would be higher than the existing double ridge height at both the front and rear of the property. A new crown roof form would be created with gables to the side elevations, which would run the depth of the extended property.

The increased height, depth, extent, form and markedly increased massing and volume of this new roof would be notably at odds with the modest form and appearance of the existing bungalow. Notwithstanding it being a detached property, and the gaps between neighbouring bungalows, the larger roof would be a prominent feature that would contrast with the pattern of development established by the host property and the modest forms and features of the neighbouring bungalows either side of it.

This somewhat dominant and incongruent roof design would be seen from the front of the building, and particularly in side views of the deep roof; views that would be notable and intrusive in the longer vistas towards the site and area when approaching the village. The design of other properties in the wider area, and aspects such as proposed rendering, materials and coherency of the elevations, would not outweigh or mitigate this harm. Thus the appeal scheme as a whole would not represent an overall enhancement.

I note the findings of an Inspector for what appellant suggests is a decision letter relating to similar circumstances as the appeal scheme before me. However, I do not have the full plans, details and evidence that was before that Inspector, and moreover, each appeal scheme should be considered on its own merits, impacts and visual context. [name] concluded views of that development were limited to within very close proximity, which is not the case for the appeal scheme before me. I attribute that decision limited weight and it does not persuade this appeal scheme, in its specific visual context, should be allowed

The National Planning Policy Framework seeks to achieve well-designed places, and requires developments to be sympathetic to local character. Policy DM9 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan (2023) requires all new development to achieve a high quality of design and contribute to the distinctive character of the local area and says that development proposals must, amongst other matters, relate positively to their locality, having regard to building heights, and the form, scale and massing around the site. The proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would be conflict with the aspects of Policy DM9 and the Framework I have set out above.

The appeal property lies within the Green Belt. Both the Council and the appellant agree the proposal is not inappropriate development as it would fall within the exception in Framework paragraph 154c) and Policy DM4 of the Local Plan, as an extension or alteration that does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. I understand no previous planning history exists for the appeal property, and the Council finds the proposal constitutes proportionate additions to the size of the original building. Based on the evidence before me regarding what constitutes the original building, I see no reason to disagree that the scale, footprint and siting of the proposal meet the stated exception. This is a neutral matter in the balance.

The appellant refers to benefits of the appeal scheme such as meeting modern living requirements, enhancing functionality, more efficient use of land, possible energy efficiency savings, and a benefit to the local community. There would also be some economic benefits such as from its construction and possibly some small on-going support to local services. However, these are limited benefits that attributed limited weight. [name] to agree the scheme is compliant with policies such as in respect of matters such as the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and highway matters these would be neutral matters in the balance. Compliance with Green Belt policies is also a neutral matter that does not weigh in favour of the scheme. Overall, the benefits and matters of policy compliance do not outweigh the harm from the appeal scheme, which attracts the greater weight.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan read as a whole and the Framework read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the policies of the Framework, which indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.