Alteration to the existing roof to create new roof and habitable accommodation together with changes to the ground floor entrance, the existing fenestration and the rear bay window; removal of the existing garage roof and replacement with a new roof to create a storage area

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/K3605/D/18/3204358 Hazelwood, Sandy Lane, Cobham, KT11 2EU  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 Fraser Slater against the decision of Elmbridge Borough Council.  The application Ref 2018/0700, dated 2 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 15 May 2018.  The development proposed is alteration to the existing roof to create new roof and habitable accommodation together with changes to the ground floor entrance, the existing fenestration and the rear bay window; removal of the existing garage roof and replacement with a new roof to create a storage area. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the locality. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a sizeable two storey detached property with detached garage set on a corner plot. The existing dwelling is unremarkable architecturally and low key within the wider scene. The locality is one of high quality residential character with a range of substantial detached properties set in generous landscape grounds which all come together to form an area of pleasing, generally sylvan, appearance. 4. The proposal is as set out above albeit this summary description taken from the application form does not explicitly refer to the raising of the main ridge by some 2.4 metres and rear and front dormers as well as major gable windows to the front. The scheme would primarily provide for new bedroom and games room accommodation. The fully hipped roof of the garage would be raised and enlarged to a gable end to allow for a new storage space accessed by an internal stairway. 5. I would agree with the Appellant that the existing property is something of an anomaly with its elevational style and relatively shallow pitched roof. This is an Appeal Decision APP/K3605/D/18/3204358 2 area where one most frequently sees steeply pitched roofs and I can see that this design seeks to take some cue from that. However the fundamental difference is that most local roofs are of a subtle vernacular which display hips, subservient features and detailing, modest dormers, and generally use small clay tiles. They sit comfortably in a sylvan setting. Exceptions do exist but they are rare and even nearby Georgian style homes are not top heavy. 6. To my mind if the roof of the existing home is to be raised it should be in a less strident style, of more modest scale, and with a more characteristic finish. The upper level extensive fenestration and the rear dormer in particular would simply be too discordant and excessive relative to below and beyond and the selected materials would draw even more attention to this. 7. I fully appreciate the wish for contemporary style but that does not mean there has to be excessive assertiveness. I can see that the Council has fairly endorsed a contemporary approach to a degree with a previous permission (Ref 2017/1594) but a fundamental difference was that by reason of the height of those approved changes they would be much more visually contained within the site and not intrude upon the wider character and qualities of the locality. 8. In summary the planned alterations taken as a whole would not accord with the prevailing character of the area and would be harmful to the surrounding scene by reason of their dominance and alien nature. The scheme is simply not suited aesthetically to these environs and in this context would represent poor design. 9. Policies DM2 and DM7 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan 2015 and Policy CS17 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy 2011, taken together and amongst other matters, seek to ensure new development embodies high quality design, reflects prevailing character and exemplifies local distinctiveness. For the reasons given above I conclude that there would be conflict with these policies. The policies have objectives that are also reflected in the Council’s Design and Character SPD 2012. In my opinion the scheme would run contrary to its main aesthetic aims albeit this publication cannot be expected to cover every eventuality. Other matters 10. I understand the wish to create more useable space for a family and the aim to make better use of the plot without impinging on neighbours. I can see that thought has been given to renewable energy provision. I did note a number of recent and, on occasion, contemporary homes in the locality albeit I did not see any directly comparable properties due to design, context or scale variations. In any event I must determine the scheme before me on its own merits. I agree that making use of roof space for habitable accommodation is not an unusual phenomenon locally, as evidenced by dormers on the neighbouring home. 11. 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 identified above. 12. The National Planning Policy Framework has been considered and the development plan policies which I cite mirror relevant objectives within that document. Appeal Decision APP/K3605/D/18/3204358 3 Overall conclusion 13. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the locality. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. D Cramond INSPECTOR