Loft conversion with front and rear dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 February 2021 by Kenneth Stone BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 24 February 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/P3610/D/20/3265692 430 Chessington Road, West Ewell KT19 9EJ • 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 Simon Dulwich against the decision of Epsom & Ewell Borough Council. • The application Ref 20/01311/FLH, dated 16 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 11 November 2020. • The development proposed is a loft conversion with front and rear dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matter 2. The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the application form as that is what permission was sought for. The Council’s description added ‘and front porch extension’ which adds detail to the scheme to add clarity. For completeness and in the interests of clarity the loft conversion also involves altering the roof shape from a hipped to a gable end roof. I have determined the appeal in relation to the development as presented in the submitted plans including the front porch and change to the roof profile. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area Reasons 4. The development plan for the area comprises the Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Core Strategy 2007, (CS) and the Epsom & Ewell Borough Council Development Management Policies Document 2015, (DMPD). The policies which are most important for determining this appeal are policies CS5 of the CS and DM9 and DM10 of the DMPD. These require that high quality development is required for all development which reinforces local distinctiveness and complements the characteristics of the Borough, that enhance townscape and make a positive contribution to the Borough’s visual character. Detailed criteria are set out which include, but are not limited to, respect for prevailing typology, scale, height, form (including roof forms) and massing; typical details and key features such as roof forms should be maintained or respected is also identified amongst other matters. The general Appeal Decision APP/P3610/D/20/3265692 2 principles and nature of these policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Character and appearance 5. The appeal property is one half of a semi-detached pair of c1930’s houses. The property has a hipped roof form and a semi-circular two storey bay to the front topped with a small gable feature that projects into the roof slope. The front façade is finished with a brick ground floor and dashed upper floor with red brown roof tiles. The adjoining half is similar but has a lighter coloured upper floor finish. The pair provide a symmetrical form and shape to the street. The wider street is however interspersed with a variety of property styles and designs including bungalows, modern semi-detached houses and a small flat block. Whilst all the properties appear to have a reasonable set back from the main carriageway, with either mature planting or parking or a combination of both provided in the forecourt areas, there is variation to the depth of the set back. 6. The change to the roof profile would be very evident in the street given the nature of the set back of the adjoining property, 428, which leaves the flank wall of the appeal property mostly exposed. The front dormer window would also be very visible and a distinct feature in the street. It would be seen above the gable feature atop the bay window element and would appear a somewhat cramped insertion into the existing roof slope. Taken together these elements would add significant bulk and mass to the existing roof profile which given the balanced and symmetrical appearance of the existing pair would appear unbalanced and excessively dominant. This would conflict with the development plan policy which seeks to ensure development is in-keeping with the existing characteristics of the area and seeks to ensure that alterations to the roof profile are appropriate and roof profiles are maintained. 7. The immediate locality is characterised by a mix of styles and properties but none of the properties in the immediate vicinity have front dormers which would mean that the appeal scheme would be more likely to attract attention. Similarly, the unbalanced nature of the pair would contribute to the roof appearing as an alien and uncharacteristic feature detrimental to the appearance of the street. Where there are pairs these retain the general shape form and balance of the original pair albeit there may have been some later additions and alterations. 8. The applicant has identified a number of properties where dormer features have been added to the properties to contend that they are a common feature and as such not detrimental to the character of the area. However, from my site inspection these were either features of the original design of those properties; small designed elements that integrated with the property and roof form to which they were added; or the street scenes into which they were inserted provided a different context and form. There were also some examples which did not integrate well with the property but which were more discretely located in the street such that their impact would not be as evident. Moreover, I have not been provided with the full details of all of these schemes and can therefore not have a full understanding of the reasoning as to why they were approved. In any event I am satisfied that there are sufficient differences with these schemes that they do not provide justification for this scheme. Each scheme needs to be considered on its own merits and the Appeal Decision APP/P3610/D/20/3265692 3 proposed design, form, and alteration to the roof profile and dormer and the immediate context into which it would be inserted are such that the proposal would result in material harm. 9. The rear dormer would not be visible within the street and the front porch is a minor addition which would not result in harm but these are either not divisible from the scheme or are only a minor element such that a split decision is not possible or appropriate. 10. For the reasons given above I conclude that the proposed development would result in material harm to the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area and as such the scheme is unacceptable. Overall conclusions 11. The proposed development would conflict with the development plan and as developments should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations would indicate a decision otherwise was appropriate, and no such considerations do so, the proposal should be refused. 12. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Kenneth Stone INSPECTOR