Development proposed is: a rear extension, hip-gable and rear dormer loft extension, front and side porches, change of material and/or colour of external fabric

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 February 2018 by Martin H Seddon BSc DipTP MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Y3615/D/17/3187215 Rivendell, Nightingale Road, East Horsley, KT24 5EW  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 Carlo Kraus against the decision of Guildford Borough Council.  The application Ref: 17/P/01350, dated 21 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 29 August 2017.  The development proposed is: a rear extension, hip-gable and rear dormer loft extension, front and side porches, change of material and/or colour of external fabric. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the proposed single storey rear extension and hip to gable end loft extension, together with insertion of roof light on front roof slope and rear dormer window following demolition of existing rear conservatory. 2. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the proposed erection of front and side porches and planning permission is granted for the proposed erection of front and side porches at Rivendell, Nightingale Road, East Horsley, KT24 5EW subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2. The external finishes of the development hereby permitted shall match in material, colour, size, style, bonding, texture and profile those of the existing building, unless otherwise stated on the approved plans. 3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans insofar as they relate to the proposed erection of front and side porches: block and site location plans 17.REH.P.SITE.01; ground floor plan 17.REH.P.01; first floor plan 17.REH.P.02; second floor plan 17.REH.P.03; roof plan 17.REH.P.04; existing elevations 17.REH.P.05, and proposed elevations 17.REH.P.06. Preliminary Matter 3. I have based my determination of this appeal on the description of development used by the Council in its decision notice because it is a more accurate specification of what is proposed. Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/D/17/3187215 2 Main Issue 4. East Horsley is identified as a settlement within the Green Belt in the adopted Guildford Borough Local Plan. The Council considers that the proposal would have no effect on the openness of the Green Belt, being within an identified settlement boundary surrounded by residential properties. It has raised no objections to the proposal on Green Belt grounds. The main issue is therefore the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area. Reasons 5. Rivendell is a detached two storey dwelling with a large rear garden located in a residential area. Nightingale Road has similarly sized detached houses of varying form and design. 6. The Council’s reasons for refusal relate primarily to the proposed single storey rear extension and the alterations to the roof. The ‘L’ shaped rear extension would have a flat roof and would extend at its extremity around 8.5 metres from the main rear wall of the building. I agree with the Council that the degree of projection of the rear extension would be excessive and out of character with the form and design of the existing dwelling. Although it would be relatively low in height it would be visible as a large expanse of flat roof when viewed from the first-floor rear windows in Campanulas (shown as ‘Campaulas’ on the submitted plans). 7. Rivendell has a hipped roof that is adjacent to the neighbouring dwelling of Campanulas, and a forward projecting gable next to the property of End Paddock. This area of Nightingale Road is characterised by the hipped roofs at Little Orchard, Campanulas, Cowslips and Hooke House. Rivendell, Campanulas and Little Orchard are of a similar height and scale and form an attractive row of buildings when viewed from Nightingale Road. 8. The proposed gable end roof next to Campanulas would be out of character in this part of Nightingale Road. The appellant advises that Campanulas originally had a gable end roof and that the proposal would revert back to a situation whereby a gable end roof would be adjacent to a hipped roof. Despite this, I consider that to introduce a new gable end roof at Rivendell would detract from the harmony in the street scene that results from the hipped roofs on the immediately neighbouring dwellings. 9. The ridgeline of the enlarged roof would be no higher than that of the existing roof. However, the increase in its scale and bulk would be significant. The front elevation of the building would consequently appear over-dominant and out of character in the street scene. 10. Overall, the proposals excluding the porches, would have an unacceptable effect on the scale and character of the building, contrary to saved policy H9 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan. There would be conflict with Local Plan policy G5 which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that new buildings respect the scale and proportions of the surrounding development. There would also be conflict with chapter 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework regarding the objective of good design. Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/D/17/3187215 3 Other Considerations 11. The appellant has submitted a survey of roof types within a 250 metres radius of the appeal site. The occurrence of other gable end roofs in the area, some of which are adjacent to hipped roofs, would be insufficient reason to justify the proposed hip to gable extension and increase in bulk of the roof at the appeal site. Conditions 12. Conditions are imposed regarding the timescale of development and to ensure that the materials used in the porches complement those of the dwelling. A condition is added to confirm the approved plans insofar as they relate to the porches hereby approved. Conclusion 13. I have taken all other matters raised into account. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed in respect of the proposed single storey rear extension and hip to gable end loft extension, together with insertion of roof light on front roof slope and rear dormer window, following demolition of existing rear conservatory. It should be allowed insofar as it relates to the front and side porches. Martin H Seddon INSPECTOR