Part two/part single storey side/rear extension, roof extension incorporating side & rear dormer windows, front roof lights, front porch and alterations to fenestration following demolition of existing attached garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 September 2018 by R J Jackson BA MPhil DMS MRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/K3605/D/18/3207082 38 Hurst Road, East Molesey KT8 9AF  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 Michael Foley against the decision of Elmbridge Borough Council.  The application Ref 2018/0776, dated 7 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 18 May 2018.  The development proposed is part two/part single storey side/rear extension, roof extension incorporating side & rear dormer windows, front roof lights, front porch and alterations to fenestration following demolition of existing attached garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matters 2. The Council refused the application for two reasons with the second relating to flood risk. In this the Council asserted that the then applicant had failed to demonstrate through an adequate Flood Risk Assessment that the proposal would be resilient to flood risk. As part of the appeal documentation the appellant submitted a revised Flood Risk Assessment. The Council was given the opportunity to comment on this and indicated that it considered the revised Assessment was still inadequate. I will discuss this below. 3. In respect of the first reason for refusal the Council has referred to Policy CS5 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy (the Core Strategy). This refers to the Hersham area and does not appear to relate to the appeal site. Rather the officer report refers to Policy CS7 of the Core Strategy which relates to East and West Molesey. I have been provided with the text of both Policies CS5 and CS7 and in respect of the issues the subject of this appeal these appear similar. I therefore consider that it would not prejudice the appellant were I to consider the proposal correctly against Policy CS7. 4. Since the appeal was lodged the Government has published the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). I consider that in respect of the issues in this appeal that there were no material changes that required me to revert back to the main parties. All references below are to the revised version of the Framework. Appeal Decision APP/K3605/D/18/3207082 2 Main Issues 5. The main issues are:  the effect on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the street scene; and  whether the proposal makes adequate provision for flood risk. Reasons Character and appearance 6. The appeal property is located on the south side of Hurst Road. It is a two storey detached property with an attached single storey flat roofed garage to the side. To the east there is a detached property with a hipped roof. Beyond that is a pair of semi-detached dwellings with a mansard style roof including dormers and a prominent balcony across the front elevation. To the west are a series of apparently semi-detached properties of a similar style to each other mostly with hipped roofs, although some have gables. Although there is some small variation, the properties are all set a similar distance from the highway with parking in front of the dwellings. 7. Overall, the character of the area is residential but with a mix of house types. Roofs generally have medium pitches and are recessive to the front elevation. The appeal property appears as a modest element in the wider street scene, with space around it. 8. The proposal is to provide extensions to both sides of the property on two floors, although part would be single storey, a single storey rear extension to the rear, to replace the roof with a higher pitch leading to a crown roof (that being with a significant flat roof area at the top) and insert a dormer in each of the two side and rear roofplanes and insert two rooflights in the front roofplane. Finally it is proposed to put a canopy across the main front elevation with a lean to roof supported on poles. 9. The proposal would significantly and harmfully alter the appearance of the property both in itself and to the street scene. The crown roof would appear as a bulky element, making the whole building appear top heavy. The dormers would utilise different pitches to the main roof which would mean that they would appear incongruous and not represent a coherent design. The rear dormer, which has a different roof pitch to both the main roof and the two side dormers, would involve extremely wide solid cheeks meaning that this dormer would appear very box like and out of proportion with the section of roof in which it would sit. The existing front gable feature would be sliced into two elements by the canopy, which uses the same roof pitch as the rear dormer, but, of course, they cannot be seen together. The canopy would mean that the verticality in design that the gable currently provides would be lost. The resulting whole is incoherent and represents a piece of poor design. 10. All of this would mean that the inherent modest character of the property would be lost. In the wider street scene this would bring the property to greater prominence, but in a harmful way as the proposal would not represent good design and would therefore detract from the street scene. The reduction in space around the building would also detract from the general rhythm of spaces along the street scene. Appeal Decision APP/K3605/D/18/3207082 3 11. The appellant has referred to other properties in the area with crown roofs which I inspected at the site visit. I do not have full details of these, but each seemed to be in a different context to the appeal site with different characteristics to those areas. Each case needs to be judged on its own merits in the light of the planning policies pertaining at the time of the decision. 12. The appellant has also referred to the pair of semi-detached properties with the mansard roof to the east. However, this pair forms an integrated and coherent design which I have found would not be the case in the appeal proposal. 13. The appellant has indicated that he considers the dormers could be constructed as permitted development. It is not for me as part of this appeal to determine whether this would be lawful. However, because of the current lower form of the roof this would not result in the same space within the roof void and consequently I consider that there is little likelihood of such dormers being inserted into the current building and thus give this possibility little weight. 14. The appeal site lies outside and to the north of the East Molesey (Kent Town) Conservation Area. The appeal site has an outbuilding at the end of the garden. This outbuilding would ensure that the proposal would not harmfully affect the setting of the Conservation Area, the significance of which would therefore be preserved. 15. Notwithstanding this, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of both the existing building and the street scene. It would therefore be contrary to Policies CS7 and CS17 of the Core Strategy which seek that development in East and West Molesey and the borough more generally is well designed, integrated with and enhances local character. It would also be contrary to Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015 which indicates that development should preserve or enhance the character of the area. It would also be contrary to the Elmbridge Design and Character SPD 2012 which seeks to achieve high quality design. 16. The proposal would also be contrary to the Framework in various respects. Paragraph 124 indicates that the creation of high quality buildings is fundamental to the planning and development process. Paragraph 126 indicates that supplementary planning documents, such as the Elmbridge Design and Character SPD, can provide a framework for a consistent and high quality standard of design. Paragraph 130 of the Framework states permission should be refused for development of poor design. Flood risk 17. The appeal site lies in Flood Zones 2 and 3 of the Environment Agency’s maps indicating a Medium and High probability of flooding respectively. The dwelling itself, as well as the additional ground areas which would be covered by building, are in Flood Zone 3. 18. Policy CS26 of the Core Strategy deals with Flooding. This indicates that development must be located, designed and laid out to ensure that it is safe, the risk of flooding is minimised while not increasing the risk of flooding elsewhere and that residual risks are safely managed. 19. This policy also indicates that where development does take place in Flood Zones 2 or 3 flood resistance and resilience measures will be required in line with Environment Agency advice and advice in the Elmbridge Strategic Flood Appeal Decision APP/K3605/D/18/3207082 4 Risk Assessment. In addition, all development within flood zones 2 and 3 will require surface water runoff to be controlled, as near to its source as possible, and at greenfield rates. 20. The Council has also published a Flood Risk Supplementary Planning Document which sets out to assist in the understanding of the consideration of flood risk and assist applicants in preparing their site specific flood risk assessments. I give this document significant weight as it provides a specific borough context to ensure resilience to flood risk. 21. In light of the revised Flood Risk Assessment submitted at the appeal stage the Council accepts that this now provides an adequate assessment of the risk of flooding from all sources. The Council is, however, concerned that the assessment only gives options as to the range of measures needed to protect the development from flood risk, does not provide details of safe access/egress routes outside the 1 in 100 year flood event or through a limited depth of flooding, and does not deal with the risk of increase in flooding elsewhere from the additional ground coverage. 22. The potential flood resilience measures set out in the Flood Risk Assessment could be mandatorily delivered through a planning condition. Although the dwelling would be larger and thus provide the opportunity for a greater population to live within it, any such increase is likely to be marginal. As I understand it, there are no safe access/egress arrangements in place for the current occupants so the proposal would not make matters worse. While a lack of safe access/egress is undesirable, in the context of an extension to an existing dwelling without one, this is a matter for the occupiers. I take this view as the Flood Risk Supplementary Planning Document indicates that site specific Flood Risk Assessments should demonstrate that “development will not impact on the ability of the local authority and the emergency services to safeguard the current population” and this will not change. 23. However, the proposal would increase ground coverage in an area of higher flood risk. Without appropriate mechanisms within the proposal to ensure that it does not add to flood risk elsewhere this would be harmful and unacceptably increase the risk for others in the area. It is in the public interest that this does not occur. 24. Consequently, the proposal does not make adequate provision for flood risk. As such it would be contrary to Policy CS26 of the Core Strategy, as set out above. It would also be contrary to paragraph 163 of the Framework which indicates that in determining planning applications flood risk should not be increased elsewhere. It would also be contrary to the relevant section of the national Planning Policy Guidance that gives advice on flood risk. Other matter 25. The appellant suggested the possibility of a split decision allowing the ground floor elements, particularly the rear extension, in the event that I considered the design of the upper floors to be unacceptable. However, the proposal has been designed as an integral whole, even if, as I have concluded above, not coherently. In any event it is the ground floor extensions that increase flood risk. It would therefore not be appropriate to issue a split decision. Appeal Decision APP/K3605/D/18/3207082 5 Conclusion 26. For the reasons given above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. R J Jackson INSPECTOR