Erection of first floor extension with two front roof lights, flank window, rear roof light and rear dormer window

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 August 2018 by D Cramond BSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P3610/D/18/3203818 2 Millers Copse, Epsom, KT18 6HF  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 Nick Guille against the decision of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/01427/FLH, dated 22 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 8 March 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of first floor extension with two front roof lights, flank window, rear roof light and rear dormer window. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of first floor extension with two front roof lights, flank window, rear roof light and rear dormer window at 2 Millers Copse, Epsom, KT18 6HF in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/01427/FLH, dated 22 December 2017, 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: 978/01, 02, 03 & 04 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any Order revoking or re-enacting or amending that Order with or without modification), no windows, dormer windows, rooflights, doors or other form of openings other than those shown on the approved plans, shall be inserted in the flank elevations of the development hereby permitted.. Preliminary Matter 2. I use the Council’s description of development which is more precise than the application form; I note that the Appellant also uses this on the appeal form. Appeal Decision APP/P3610/D/18/3203818 2 Main Issue 3. The main issue is the 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 detached bungalow in a small cul de sac which includes 3 properties of similar design. The locality is towards the countryside edge of an established area of residential character with a wide mix of house types which come together to form a suburban area of pleasing appearance. The proposal is as described above. 5. The Council is concerned that given size and design the extension works would be incongruous and not respect the roof form and appearance of the host building. In its eyes the prominence of this would have a detrimental impact on the character of this cul-de-sac. 6. Homes and roofs vary greatly locally but I recognise that the appeal property shares the roof characteristics with two neighbouring homes. However I would say this should not mean it has to set in aspic. This is partly because the homes are not read as one entity given their spread, disposition, levels and landscape. Furthermore it has to be said that the existing roof form with its strange mix of varied spreads, gables, a flat roof part and staggers is not of great aesthetic value. A suitable change to the existing would thus be a reasonable proposition. 7. I agree with the Council that the roof lights and dormers would be innocuous. I would go further, there would be no visual harm in the main pitch being raised by about 1.2 metres to my mind given the immediate built context and also having regard to the ground dropping away both in the cul de sac towards this home and on the plot itself. Additionally the mansard element would read as a reasonable and relatively modest part of the whole structure. Similarly the brick infill which is planned is not a feature which would unduly catch or jar on the eye. With matching materials it would be comfortably absorbed when work was completed within the range of elevational characteristics that would be found on this reasonably extended property. 8. Policies DM9 and DM10 of the Development Management Policies DPD (DMP) are relevant. Taken together and amongst other matters, they call for high quality design for new development which should safeguard local distinctiveness, environment and character. I conclude the appeal scheme would not run contrary to these policies. Conditions 9. The Council suggests the standard commencement condition along with the requirement for materials to match the existing building. I agree this latter condition would be appropriate in the interests of visual amenity and that there should be a condition that works are to be carried out in accordance with listed, approved, plans; to provide certainty. I shall also adopt the Council’s suggestion of restrictions on further openings in the interests of neighbours’ privacy and amenity. Appeal Decision APP/P3610/D/18/3203818 3 Overall conclusion 10. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would not have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. D Cramond INSPECTOR