Erection of two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and widening of existing dormer roof extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15th February 2018 by Alison Roland BSc DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z5630/D/17/3187539 183 Hamilton Avenue, Tolworth, KT6 7QA.  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 D Chandarana against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames.  The application Ref: 17/10333/HOU, dated 26 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 10 October 2017.  The development proposed is erection of two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and widening of existing dormer roof extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the implications of the proposal for the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property comprises one of a pair of semi detached houses which has had a hip to gable roof extension. The proposal would see a two storey extension to one side, set in from the common boundary by 1 metre at first floor with the ground floor beneath extending up to the boundary. 4. Because the extension would not incorporate a set down from ridge level and set back on the front elevation, it would fail to appear as a subordinate addition to the host property; these measures being sought in Policy Guidance 36 of the Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2013). Whilst the hip to gable extension already carried out has to some extent altered the symmetry between the host property and its attached neighbour, the proposed side extension would markedly increase the scale of the appeal dwelling relative to its neighbour and compound the asymmetry in a more obvious and discordant fashion. 5. I take the appellant’s point that during discussions with the Council, the initial Planning Officer dealing with the case suggested that they were satisfied with the design and it was a subsequent Officer that came to a different view. Whilst Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/D/17/3187539 2 I have every sympathy with that position, the fact is that informal advice is not binding on the Council. To that extent, I agree with the appellant that the assessment is necessarily a subjective one, albeit in this case aided by detailed and relatively recently adopted design guidance, to which I attribute significant weight. In coming to this view, I fully appreciate that the architectural detailing of the extension has been designed to complement the host property, but I nonetheless share the Council’s concern that by virtue of its bulk and massing, it would fail to appear as a subordinate addition thereto. 6. I also observed a number of other two storey side extensions in this particular street. However, in the main, even if they do not incorporate a set back from the front elevation and/or indeed side boundary, they are designed with a markedly lower ridge line than their respective host properties, which lends them a more subordinate appearance relative thereto. It also seems plausible that some of these may have been built prior to the adoption of the current design guidance in the SPD, which renders their circumstances different to the appeal before me. 7. I also appreciate the absence of third party opposition to the planning application, but that does not render the proposal acceptable on its planning merits. 8. For these reasons, I conclude on the main issue that the proposal would fail to appear as a subordinate addition to the host dwelling and by virtue of this and the resultant unbalanced appearance relative to its attached neighbour, would materially harm the character and appearance of the street scene. This would bring it into conflict with Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2016), Policies CS 8 and DM 10 of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames Core Strategy (2012), as well as the advice in the SPD. These seek to secure high quality design in new development, that reinforces the local distinctiveness of places and enhances the public realm. ALISON ROLAND INSPECTOR