Erection of two storey side extension, first floor side/rear extension, hip to gable roof extension, installation of two juliet balconies to rear and two roof lights to the front elevation to facilitate a 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/18/3201298 9 Willoughby Road, Kingston Upon Thames, KT2 6LN  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 Steve Dunn against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames.  The application Ref 17/13180/HOU, dated 27 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 March 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of two storey side extension, first floor side/rear extension, hip to gable roof extension, installation of two juliet balconies to rear and two roof lights to the front elevation to facilitate a loft conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. 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. Main Issue 3. The main issue is effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling on a corner plot. It has a generally pleasing appearance with simple proportions and elevations including the gable and ground floor bay window to the frontage street, Willoughby Road, and lower pitched roof elements to the side and rear. There is a screened side garden / driveway running parallel to the return street, Beresford Road. The locality is an established residential area of suburban character. Most of the houses are semi-detached with the main ridge running parallel to frontage roads and so the appeal property is something of an anomaly, but not an unattractive one. The proposal is as described above and would create appreciably increased living and bedroom accommodation. 5. The scheme would embody a very extensive flank wall which would run along the return road effectively on the back edge of the footway. Part of this wall would be topped by a flat roof at its highest point. Close to the rear corner Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/D/18/3201298 2 abutting the street there would be a vertical face at roof height with extensive glazing bearing no relationship to what would lie below. The large bulk of very unsubtle extension work would be most ungainly and completely alien to the host property and the streetscene. The planned roof with its shape, height and accommodation along with the awkward elevations to all sides jutting into the streetscene would appear as a stark, prominent, over-sized and unsympathetic intrusion into an otherwise generally pleasant neighbourhood. 6. I do agree with the Appellant that there would be some merit in decreasing the depth of the existing property, and hence gaining rear garden space although the parts to be lost do have a reasonable subservient design. In any event, as noted above, the planned works would be over-whelming rather than suitably subordinate to the host property and would look very uncomfortable in the streetscene on this prominent corner. 7. In all the circumstances the proposed changes would be harmful to the character and appearance of this property and wider locality; the scheme would represent inappropriate over-development. 8. Policies CS8 and DM10 of the Council’s Core Strategy (CS) and Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 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 qualities of suburban properties. 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. Other matters 9. The Council also raises concerns over car and cycle parking provision; here I would agree with the Appellant. Having regard to the non-developed areas which would remain on the plot and the existence of a large store which was previously a garage, and could return to being so, the judicious use of planning conditions could satisfactorily resolve these points. Had I been minded to allow the appeal my dealing with these matters via conditions would have ensured there was no conflict with any relevant elements of CS Policies DM9 or DM10 or the Sustainable Transport SPD, 2013. 10. I sympathise with the Appellant’s wish to increase the extent of accommodation at this property. I note the disappointment at the lack of dialogue which has been possible with the Council. I can see that thought has been given to window style and note the flexibility on this matter expressed by the Appellant. I have carefully considered all the points raised by the Appellant. However, taken individually or cumulatively these matters do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to the main issue identified above. 11. I confirm that policies in the National Planning Policy Framework have been considered. Key objectives of the document are to safeguard qualities of the built environment and the development plan policies which I cite mirror these. Overall conclusion Appeal Decision APP/Z5630/D/18/3201298 3 12. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal need not be deemed unsatisfactory in terms of car or cycle parking but would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. D Cramond INSPECTOR