Erection of single storey rear extension, increase in height of roof and erection of 5 dormer windows to facilitate loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 July 2018 by D Cramond BSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z5630/D/18/3200021 121 Acre Road, Kingston Upon Thames, KT2 6EZ  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 Ben Hayward against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames.  The application Ref 18/12059/HOU, dated 19 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 21 March 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of single storey rear extension, increase in height of roof and erection of 5 dormer windows to facilitate loft conversion . Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the increase in height of roof and erection of 5 dormer windows to facilitate loft conversion. 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted insofar as it relates to the erection of single storey rear extension at 121 Acre Road, Kingston Upon Thames, KT2 6EZ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/12059/HOU, dated 19 January 2018, 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 materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans solely insofar as they directly relate to the approved works for a single storey rear extension: 937_121AR_D101, D102, D103, D104, D105, D107, D108, D109, X000, X001, X002 & X003. Preliminary Matters 3. I use the Council’s description of development which is more precise than the planning application form; I note the Appellant also uses this description on the appeal form. 4. I consider that there are two principal and distinct parts of the proposal; the single storey rear extension – and the increase in height of the roof and erection of 5 dormer windows to facilitate a loft conversion. I therefore would be able to issue a split decision in this case. Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/D/18/3200021 2 Main Issue 5. The main issue is effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Reasons 6. The appeal property is a modestly sized, two storey gable fronted dwelling. The house has an existing two storey gable ended side extension, front porch and chimney stack. It is finished in white painted brickwork and has a slate roof. The overall effect is of agreeable simple elevations with an appropriate innocuous roof form and the dwelling contributes positively to the streetscene. There are various types of dwelling found locally with a few close-by very similar to the appeal property. The properties all come together to create an area with a generally pleasing traditional aesthetic and a characterful established residential environment. The proposal is as described above. Increase in height of roof and erection of 5 dormer windows 7. The works proposed to convert this shallow pitched roof to a space which can accommodate two bedrooms, a shower room and a stair and landing would be very considerable in scale. Even allowing for varied eaves and ridge heights locally the scheme would stand out as being awkward, over-tall and ungainly extension works which would lack any of the suitable subtlety called for on this pleasing house in this locality. The dormers would be too large and numerous, poorly sited, and would appear as almost random additions. The upper part of the front gable would become disproportionate. The roof would end as a jumble of shapes and planes and the characteristic chimney would be lost. Planned windows would bear little relationship to what would lie below or alongside and would create an uncoordinated and visually uncomfortable scene. No attempt would be evident to try to work with the original building; rather this would be an example of unfortunate domination not subordination. I appreciate that this is not a Conservation Area but that is not a reason to allow a scheme which would simply be too top heavy and of incongruous and mundane design. 8. The Appellant has provided evidence of extension works which have taken place within the locality and it is quite clear that there are some sizeable roof alterations in the neighbourhood. I do not know the planning background of all of these and it has to be said that some of the works do not make a positive contribution to the scene and to my mind should certainly not set a design benchmark. The works whether visually appealing or quite the opposite would not establish a precedent as in any event I must determine the scheme before me on its own merits. The development specifically cited at numbers 178 and 180 Acre Road is not directly comparable to the more radical case in hand by reason of scale, design and positioning. I take the point that there is variety in roof forms locally but nevertheless that does not make it any less incumbent upon me to seek to secure good quality design in a case such as this. I recognise that there would be no residential amenity issues for neighbours or new car parking issues. I do sympathise with the wish to extend to provide increased family accommodation and I hope that a suitable solution can be found. Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/D/18/3200021 3 9. I have carefully considered all the points raised by the Appellant but these matters do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to the main issue associated with these parts of the proposal. 10. Policies CS8 and DM10 of the Council’s Core Strategy (CS), taken together call for, amongst other matters, well designed development, appropriate to its site and setting and of a suitable scale, appearance and character which would protect local distinctiveness and aesthetic quality. I conclude that the appeal scheme would run contrary to these policies which mirror objectives embodied in the Council’s Residential Design SPD 2013. In this instance the development would not satisfactorily follow the pertinent guidance within the SPD albeit I do recognise that this document cannot be expected to cover every eventuality and should, at times, be treated with a degree of flexibility. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above I conclude that the planned increase in height of the roof and erection of 5 dormer windows to facilitate a loft conversion would have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Accordingly the appeal for this part of the proposal is dismissed. Single storey rear extension 12. This element of the overall proposal is not controversial with the Council and the Delegated Report explains why that is in terms of benign scale and suitable design. I would agree with the Council’s analysis. 13. In the circumstances I conclude that for this part of the overall proposal there would not be conflict with the development plan policies which I cite in paragraph 10 above. 14. In terms of conditions which could apply, the Council suggests the standard commencement condition along with a requirement for works to be carried out in accordance with listed, approved, plans. I agree with this as it provides certainty. A condition relating to submission of materials is suggested but I am satisfied that specifying the use of matching materials on this element would be sufficient requirement upon the Appellant and would be in the interests of visual amenity. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above I conclude that the single storey rear extension would not have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Accordingly the appeal for this part of the proposal is allowed. D Cramond INSPECTOR