Appeal Against Conditions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 December 2017 by Richard S Jones BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 20 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/K3605/D/17/3183489 35 Rectory Lane, Long Ditton, Surbiton KT6 5HP  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted.  The appeal is made by Mr Simon Martin against the decision of Elmbridge Borough Council.  The application Ref 2016/3673, dated 5 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 13 June 2017.  The application sought planning permission for a roof extension including an increase in the ridge and eaves height and front, rear and side dormers without complying with conditions attached to planning permission Ref 2015/2310, dated 6 October 2015.  The conditions in dispute are Nos 2 and 3 which state that: (2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following list of approved plans: Block Plan received on 11th June 2015, Location Plan received 30th June 2015 and 15.35RLP.004, 15.35RLP.006 & 15.35RLP.005 received 27 July 2015. (3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension shall match as nearly as practically possible those of the existing building to which it is attached, in colour, type, finish and profile.  The reasons given for the conditions are: (2) To ensure that the development is carried out in a satisfactory manner. (3) To ensure that a satisfactory external appearance is achieved of the development in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a roof extension including an increase in the ridge and eaves height and front, rear and side dormers at 35 Rectory Lane, Long Ditton, Surbiton KT6 5HP, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2016/3673, dated 5 April 2017 and subject to the following conditions. 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan; 1522-500 Rev. No 3; 1522-501 Rev. No 3; 1522-502 Rev. No 3; 1522-503 Rev. No 3; and 1522-504 Rev. No 3. 2) The materials used in the construction of the remainder of the dwelling shall match those as existing. 3) The first floor window in the north west elevation shall be fitted with obscure glazing and shall be non-opening. The glass shall be sufficiently Appeal Decision APP/K3605/D/17/3183489 2 obscured to prevent loss of privacy. The fixed obscure glazing shall be retained thereafter. Preliminary matters 2. I note that the amended plans include a single storey rear extension which is annotated as being built under permitted development rights and not forming part of this S73 proposal. This is confirmed in the Council’s committee report and that its assessment of the proposal did not include this extension. Therefore, although noting the comments received on this aspect from interested parties, as it is not a matter currently before me, it would not be appropriate for me to make any comments on it. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 4. At the time of my site visit works to the dwelling appeared to be at a very advanced stage, although no work was currently ongoing. I appreciate that which has been built is very different to that which previously occupied the site. However, that would remain the case even if the development had been completed in accordance with the approved plans. The nature of this appeal essentially restricts my consideration to the difference between the approved and proposed details. 5. Although there is a bungalow next door, the appeal dwelling is primarily viewed within a street scene comprising detached and semi-detached houses in a variety of architectural styles. External wall finishes are varied and include render, pebbledash and facing brick in varying shades. Consequently, the site is not sensitive to minor variations within this range. I accept that roofs predominantly comprise dark tiles but there are a number of properties at the northern end of the road with grey slate roofs. Therefore, a slate grey roof tile, which will darken in time, is not an alien feature to the area. 6. Having regard to the size and context of the dwelling, a 300mm increase in its ridge height, and consequential changes to its roof pitch, are not significant or materially different in their effects. The size and positioning of the skylight is such that it would have little or no visual effect on the street scene. 7. The changes to the dimensions of the dormers would be more noticeable but not particularly significant. Although the windows installed in the front dormer are taller and wider, the difference in effects from that which has already been approved is not so significant so as to warrant withholding approval. I reach the same conclusion for the rear and side dormers. I accept that the black window frames against a white render background is quite stark, but I do not consider this to be unacceptable and I’m not convinced that cladding the dormers would materially improve their appearance. 8. I also accept that bay windows are a characteristic feature of the street scene and that the original design would have been sympathetic in this regard. However, there are numerous other houses in the street which have conventional flat profile windows. There are also numerous examples of both Appeal Decision APP/K3605/D/17/3183489 3 clear glazed and lattice windows and therefore the proposed fenestration is not alien to the street scene. 9. Moreover, the proposed plans show the provision of an amended canopy along the front elevation between the ground and first floor level. This would respond positively to the canopies over other bay windows in the street and add a further feature to the elevation, thereby drawing attention away from the difference in the size of the windows. 10. Whilst the quality of the scheme has diminished from that which was originally approved, in overall terms the cumulative effects of each of the differences is not so significant or so unsympathetic whereby approval could reasonably be withheld. I therefore conclude that the variations would not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling or the surrounding area and as such would not be contrary to Policies CS8 and CS17 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy or Policies DM1 and DM2 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan or the Design and Character Supplementary Planning Document: Home Extensions. These state, amongst other matters, that new development will be required to deliver high quality and inclusive sustainable design, which maximises the efficient use of urban land whilst responding to the positive features of individual locations, integrating sensitively with the locally distinctive townscape, landscape, and heritage assets, and protecting the amenities of those within the area. 11. It follows therefore that I do not find conflict with section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which requires high quality design that responds to the character of the area. Other matters 12. The scheme currently before me would not result in any material increase in overlooking or overbearing effects, above that which has been approved. Issues relating to protection of trees within the site and landscaping do not fall within the scope of issues I am able to consider with this appeal proposal. Conditions 13. As the original development has begun, it is not necessary for me to impose the standard time limit condition. A condition which specifies the amended plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. As the dwelling is not fully complete, a materials condition is necessary to ensure consistency. I note that the original planning permission also included a condition requiring the first floor window in the north west elevation to be obscure glazed. Therefore, to ensure the privacy of the neighbouring dwelling I have re-imposed a condition to this effect. For this and other conditions I have amended the wording from the original planning permission to reflect the stage of development and to ensure compliance with paragraph 206 of the Framework. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude the appeal should be allowed. Richard S Jones Inspector