Part single and part 2 storey extensions to front, rear and side; replacement of existing roof with additional habitable accommodation created and dormer windows to front elevation and rooflights to rear elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 November 2020 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 December 2020. Appeal Ref: APP/M3645/D/20/3257256 Stoneycroft, Tydcombe Road, Warlingham, Surrey CR6 9LU • 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 & Mrs Reiner against the decision of Tandridge District Council. • The application, Ref. 2020/763, dated 13 May 2020 was refused by notice dated 8 July 2020. • The development proposed is part single and part 2 storey extensions to front, rear and side; replacement of existing roof with additional habitable accommodation created and dormer windows to front elevation and rooflights to rear elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part single and part 2 storey extensions to front, rear and side; replacement of existing roof with additional habitable accommodation created and dormer windows to front elevation and rooflights to rear elevation at Stoneycroft, Tydcombe Road, Warlingham, Surrey in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 2020/763, dated 13 May 2020, subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule. Main Issues 2. The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposed alterations and extensions on the character and appearance of the dwelling and its surroundings, and (ii) the effect on the living conditions as regards outlook for the occupiers of Canjayar, the neighbouring property. Reasons 3. The grounds of appeal explain that the proposal only differs from application ref. 2019/2236 approved on 28 February 2020 in respect of the roof being raised. The officer’s report says that the proposed increase in ridge height of 1m from the approved 8m to 9m in the appeal scheme would justify a refusal on the two main issues. 4. On the first issue, I saw on my visit that there is a wide variety of dwelling designs and sizes on Tydcombe Road and these differences include substantial disparities of scale and bulk in close proximity with one another. If the appeal is allowed the relationship between Stoneycroft and Canjayar would be a case in point, but whether it would be harmful requires closer scrutiny. Appeal Decision APP/M3645/D/20/3257256 2 5. In this instance, I consider that the combination of the hipped roof of the extended Stoneycroft and the angular v-shaped gap from rear to front between the building and Canjayar would avoid any harmful perception of character and appearance arising from their different sizes. There is a further point to which I give substantial weight. The higher ridge and therefore larger roof plane would provide a more substantive visual frame for both the large central gable and the dormers to each side. The dormers in particular appear incongruously prominent on approved scheme ref. 2019/2236, whereas the now proposed higher ridge and therefore larger roofscape would reduce this prominence as part of an improved and more coherent architectural composition. This is particularly evident in a comparison of the respective CGIs for the approved and proposed schemes. 6. On the second issue, the appellants are in my view correct to point out that with the hipped roof, the higher ridge would be positioned further away from the boundary with Canjayar than the roof already approved. I cannot therefore see any way that, with the addition at this distance and height, this would change a roof that has already been judged as acceptable into one that would now have an ‘overbearing and overpowering impact’ as the Council claims. 7. On the main issues I therefore conclude that the proposed alterations and additions would have neither a harmful effect on the character and appearance of Stoneycroft and its surroundings nor an adverse effect on the outlook for the occupiers of Canjayar, the neighbouring property. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with Policy DP7 of the Tandridge District Local Plan: Part 2 – Detailed Policies 2014; Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008, and Section 12: ‘Achieving Well-Designed Places’ of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. 8. I shall therefore allow the appeal. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is needed for certainty and is in the interests of proper planning. A condition requiring approval of external materials will ensure a harmonious form of development and safeguard visual amenity. The privacy of the neighbours at Canjayar will be maintained by a condition stipulating obscure glazing and non-opening of the first floor side windows. Finally, tree conditions will ensure that the garden trees at Stoneycroft are protected so as to continue making their positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/M3645/D/20/3257256 3 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision; 2) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans / CGIs: Drawing Nos. 18 38 10; 18 38 11; 18 38 12; 18 38 13; 18 38 14; 18 38 15; 18 38 16; 18 38 17; 18 38 18; 3) The development shall be carried out in accordance with details / samples of materials for the external surfaces that have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority (‘lpa’); 4) Before the development hereby approved is occupied the two windows at first floor level in the north elevation shall be obscure glazed and non- opening up to a height 1.7m above the internal floor level and shall be permanently maintained as such; 5) The development shall be carried out in full accordance with a Tree Protection Plan (‘TPP’) first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The TPP shall relate to all stages of development for the protection of all trees and hedges to be retained on site or trees located offsite within 12 metres of the site boundary. These details shall observe the principles of BS 5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations); shall be implemented prior to any works commencing on site; shall be retained during the course of development, and shall not be varied without the written agreement of the lpa; 6) During the period of construction work no bonfires shall take place within the trees’ root protection areas (RPAs) or within a position where heat could affect foliage or branches; no further trenches, drains or service runs shall be sited within the RPAs of any retained trees, and no further changes in ground levels or excavations shall take place within the RPAs of any retained trees.