Loft conversion incorporating raising the ridge by 1.02m, insertion of two front and two rear dormers with a front and rear roof window, and to re-cover all roofs with natural slate

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 October 2018 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R3650/D/18/3206771 5 Woodstock Close, Cranleigh, GU6 7LD  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 P Ashley against the decision of Waverley Borough Council.  The application Ref WA/2018/0810, dated 24 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 27 June 2018.  The development proposed is a loft conversion incorporating raising the ridge by 1.02m, insertion of two front and two rear dormers with a front and rear roof window, and to re-cover all roofs with natural slate. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a loft conversion incorporating raising the ridge by 1.02m, insertion of two front and two rear dormers with a front and rear roof window, and to re-cover all roofs with natural slate at 5 Woodstock Close, Cranleigh, GU6 7LD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref WA/2018/0810, dated 24 April 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drg Nos 1811-1, 1811-2 and 1811-3. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the roof to the development hereby permitted shall match those that are to be used on the roof to the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two-storey, detached dwelling with a single-storey wing to one side, positioned in a short cul-de-sac containing other originally similar mock-Georgian style properties all set within a wider residential area. Appeal Decision APP/R3650/D/18/3206771 2 The proposal would raise the ridge height to No 5 and insert dormer windows to the front and rear roof slopes. 4. Despite the repetition to the design of the original dwellings along Woodstock Close, I was unable to detect any sense of rhythm or regimentation to the street scene that was of any importance. This was due to a number of factors including: the curvature of the road, with no regular building lines, spacing between properties, or plot widths, particularly those to the east side of the road which includes No 5 on the inside of the bend; the subservient visual presence of some dwellings due to a variety of tall enclosures to the front of some; the variation to the side wings of all the properties, some much wider and more dominant than others, with a mix of roof types displayed including gable and hip ends; alterations to some over time where they have departed from their original form, including as an example the dormer windows to the front and rear of the single-storey side wing to No 7; and the mixed property types, ages and sizes that reflect the residential character of the wider area, some of which are openly part of the vista that can be had looking back along Woodstock Close towards the junction with Avenue Road. 5. When all of this is considered, I find there to be no uniformity to the character of the area that would necessarily prohibit change to the appearance of No 5, illustrated perhaps by the changes to the appeal property that have already occurred, but which do not form part of the proposal that is before me. No 5 has undergone some noticeable alterations with its brickwork covered with a coloured render, windows replaced with alternative styles, and a gated enclosure to its frontage at the back edge of the pavement. Contrary to the views of some, in my opinion these changes are not strident but demonstrate to me how alterations to the original architecture can be successfully assimilated into the street scene without any harm. 6. The ridge height to No 5 would unquestionably rise above the heights of its neighbours. But not significantly so and I do not share the view that the dwelling would appear as a three-storey house. The eaves heights would be unaltered, as would the two-storey front façade. The second floor would be obviously seen as accommodation within the roof space. In my view the scale of the resulting building would be appropriate to the locality and in proportion to others around it with no pronounced vertical emphasis. Although the pitch of the roof would change, I am not persuaded that it would appear overtly different to the roof pitch over the property’s side wing to a degree that would make it appear incongruous or somehow out of kilter. 7. The Council accepts that the dormer windows would be of an acceptable size and design, as would the rooflights. The dormers would sit down from the ridge, up from the eaves and away from both sides. They would be amply framed by the surrounding slate roof tiles, the choice of which would contrast with the roof tiles on the other properties in Woodstock Close, but which would merely advance the changes already made to the appeal property in a consistent and complementary way. There is no doubt that the new roof arrangement would be noticeable in the street scene, but I do not accept that the dormers would be imposing features. They would be seen to be part of an integrated design approach with the overall architecture of No 5 appearing well balanced and comfortable in its setting. For these reasons I find there to be no conflict with the guiding principles within the Council’s Residential Extensions Appeal Decision APP/R3650/D/18/3206771 3 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2010 insofar as they relate to roof alterations and dormer windows, as referenced within the officer’s report. Neither do I find conflict with Policy TD1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies and Sites (LP Part 1), adopted in February 2018, or saved Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan 2002 insofar as they deal with the environmental implications and quality of design to ensure that development respects the distinctive local character of an area. Other Matters 8. I have noted concern that the dormers windows would result in overlooking towards some neighbours. Although the new windows would increase the number of openings to the front and rear of No 5, they would not introduce any outlook directed towards other properties where none currently exists. Furthermore, the separation distances between properties to the front and rear would be ample to ensure that there would be no significant opportunity to gain sight into others’ habitable spaces or private garden areas. I note also that the Council did not identify any conflict with their SPD guidance or with any development plan policies in this regard. 9. Any suggestion that the proposal would impact upon on-street car parking within Woodstock Close is unsupported by any substantive evidence, with the Council acknowledging that the appeal site can accommodate parking in line with their own guidelines for a dwelling with 3 or more bedrooms. 10. Despite suggestions that the proposal would conflict with the Cranleigh Design Statement I have not been provided with a copy of that document or any extracts from it. Neither is it listed within the officer’s report as being part of the development plan or guidance of relevance. Concern that the proposal would create a precedent is noted. However, each proposal must be considered on its own merits and in this instance, I have found no reason to object to the proposal. Conditions 11. A condition specifying the relevant drawings is necessary as this provides certainty. The application explicitly refers to the use of new natural slate to all the roofs and dormers. To safeguard the character and appearance of the area a condition is necessary to ensure that the external materials for the roofs all match, but it is not necessary for them to match those currently used. The condition I have used therefore reflects these circumstances. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area. In the absence of any other conflict with the development plan, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed. John D Allan INSPECTOR