Loft conversion with side dormer construction

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 December 2017 by I Radcliffe BSc(Hons) MRTPI MCIEH DMS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 27th December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/Z5630/D/17/3184641 25 Red Lion Road, Tolworth KT6 7QG  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 Beevers against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames.  The application Ref 17/16303/HOU, dated 18 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 27 June 2017.  The development proposed is a loft conversion with side dormer construction. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. The appellant states that the side dormer has been built in line with permitted development guidelines. However, whether it is permitted development is not a matter for me to determine in the context of an appeal made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. It is open to the appellant to apply to have the matter determined under sections 191 or 192 of the Act. Any such application would be unaffected by my determination of this appeal. Main Issue 3. The proposed loft conversion with side dormer construction has already been constructed. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a semi-detached Victorian house within a row of similar gable fronted dwellings. On the opposite side of the road, slightly further to the south, is a similar row of houses. As a result, in public views along Red Lion Road the regular rhythm of these houses forms an important part of the street scene. 5. No 25 is a two storey Victorian house. Prior to the loft conversion its proportions and simple roof form mirrored that of its attached neighbour, No 27. However, the dormer that has been constructed is level with the top of the wall along the ridge of the roof and occupies almost all the available roofspace. It is contrary therefore in this regard to the supplementary planning document ‘Residential Design’ (SPD) which states that dormers should be set down from the ridge and comfortably in from the sides of the roof and up from its eaves. As a result of its design, it is an overly dominant roof extension that has given Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/D/17/3184641 2 the house a top heavy appearance and has had a significant adverse effect on its character and appearance and that of the street scene. 6. My attention has been drawn to other properties that have been extended with large side dormers nearby. There are two examples within the row of houses where No 25 is located. However, they are too infrequent to change the character and appearance of the road from one where the regular rhythm of these well-proportioned houses with their simple roof form is characterised by roofs with large dormers. The other side dormers that have been referred to are located on nearby streets and so do not form part of the street scene of Red Lion Road. As a consequence, the dormers referred to have not changed the character and appearance of the area to the extent that the dormer would fit in. Moreover, the circumstances of each dormer are likely to be different and the fact that similar development may have been permitted is not a reason, on its own, to allow unacceptable development. I have considered this appeal proposal on its own merits and concluded that it would have a significant adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area for the reasons set out above. 7. A certificate of lawful development exists for a proposal for a loft conversion at the appeal property on the basis that it would constitute permitted development. Based on the appellant’s submission it differs from what has been built only in that the dormer would have a lower roof. As a result however, the permitted dormer would be less dominant, more in proportion to the house and not as harmful to the character and appearance of the house and area as the dormer that has been constructed. As a consequence, this is a fallback position to which I attach limited weight in favour of the development. 8. Taking all these matters into account, I therefore conclude that the scale of this development dominates the house and unacceptably harms its character and appearance, and that of the area. As a result, it does not constitute high quality design and is contrary to London Plan Policies 3.5, 7.4 and 7.6, policies CS8 and DM10 of the Council’s Core Strategy and the SPD. These policies require the protection of the character and appearance of a locality through high quality design that respects local design features. Ian Radcliffe Inspector