Two storey side extension with a single storey front extension, following demolition of an existing single storey garage and covered area. The application also includes a new two storey and single storey rear extension and a separate single storey side extension plus new a roof [sic] with gable dormer windows to provide second floor accommodation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 May 2017 by Oliver Blower MA (T&CP) a person appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 27 June 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/K3605/D/17/3172144 51 Heathside, Esher KT10 9TD  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Mark Allwood and Ms Nina Fois against the decision of Elmbridge Borough Council.  The application Ref 2016/3577, dated 29 October 2016, was refused by notice dated 3 January 2017.  The development proposed is described as “A two storey side extension with a single storey front extension, following demolition of an existing single storey garage and covered area. The application also includes a new two storey and single storey rear extension and a separate single storey side extension plus new a roof [sic] with gable dormer windows to provide second floor accommodation”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The Council’s single reason for refusal relates solely to the front dormer window. I have therefore only considered this aspect of the proposal, especially given that other elements of the scheme have recently been granted by a planning permission which omits the accommodation at second floor including the raising of the roof height and the front and rear dormer windows. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the front dormer window on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area. Reasons 4. The appeal relates to a two-storey detached house with a distinctive gablet roof. The immediate area is characterised by a mixture of similarly styled detached and semi-detached houses, some of which also have gablet roofs. 5. The development plan includes the Elmbridge Core Strategy 2011 (CS). Policy CS17 of the CS seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that development delivers high quality design which responds to the positive features of individual locations, integrating sensitively with the locally distinctive townscape. Appeal Decision APP/K3605/D/17/3172144 2 6. Further guidance is given in the Design and Character Supplementary Planning Document 2012 (SPD). This recommends that roof extensions should not dominate the roof by being over-large. 7. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, and that poorly designed development should be refused where it fails to improve the character and quality of an area. 8. The large size of the front dormer, coupled with its height in line with the raised ridge, would lead to an excessively bulky addition that would dominate the front roof plane and appear out of scale with the existing proportions of the dwelling. 9. The introduction of a large four pane window into the outsized gablet, as opposed to the present smaller elevation of hung tiles, would be viewed as an incongruous addition which would break with the appearance of other distinctive gablet roofs nearby, and draw further attention to its bulk. 10. The appellant has referred to 31 Heathside where planning permission was granted for a similar development, although it was not built out. From the evidence, however, the approved gablet dormer was substantially smaller than that proposed. Reference has also been made to various other developments, yet in my assessment none of these are directly comparable in size or design to the proposed dormer window. Several are located some distance away so that they do not form part of the character of the immediate area, and many predate the Council’s CS, SPD or both. 11. As such, for the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the proposed front dormer window would materially harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. As such it conflicts with CS Policy CS17, advice in the SPD, and National planning policy in the Framework. I therefore dismiss the appeal. Oliver Blower Appointed Person