Conversion of the loft space into a habitable room with the construction of a dormer at the rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 February 2019 by Paul T Hocking BA MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/P5870/D/18/3216536 4 Wildes Cottages, Ewell Road, Cheam SM3 8AS • 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 Subev against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Sutton. • The application Ref DM2018/01551, dated 7 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 6 November 2018. • The development proposed is conversion of the loft space into a habitable room with the construction of a dormer at the rear. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the existing dwelling and row of terraced properties and whether or not it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Cheam Village Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The appeal site consists of a modest dwelling set within a terrace of 8 characterful properties, known as Wildes Cottages, which are within close proximity of the road frontage. There is a park opposite and to the rear a commercial premises. Planning permission was granted for alterations at the appeal site Ref 17/77167/HHA which included a modest-sized dormer in the rear roofslope. This current proposal seeks to retain a wider dormer which I could see from my site visit was nearing completion. The terrace of properties have modest single-storey rear extensions although only the appeal site has a dormer. 4. The appeal site lies within the Cheam Village Conservation Area. In determining this appeal I have duties to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that Area. These Areas are heritage assets and so are irreplaceable. Therefore, any harm or loss requires clear and convincing justification. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that any harm which is less than substantial must be weighed against the public benefit of the development. 5. The core of the Cheam Village Conservation Area is arranged around the axis of Park Lane, Malden Road, The Broadway and Park Road containing buildings of Appeal Decision APP/P5870/D/18/3216536 2 architectural and historic interest, some of which date from the 16th and 17th century. Whilst there has been development and change in the last 60 years, the Area’s significance derives from the retention of its unique character and original essence. Wildes Cottages are one such group of properties which are characterful given their diminutive scale and traditional design detailing and so make a positive contribution to the Area. 6. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, Design of Residential Extensions, adopted October 2006 (the SPD), explains that roof extensions are very often the most difficult to add successfully to a house. Large, flat-roofed, box like dormers can therefore have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of dwellings, including dormers at the rear. The SPD states that dormers should not cover the entire roof slope as this is one of the reasons they are likely to then be overly large and dominant. The dormer is approximately 3.8m wide and 3.2m high and covers almost the entire width and depth of the roof slope. It therefore conflicts with the guidance of the SPD. 7. In addition, the excessive width of the dormer has also resulted in an awkward attachment with the chimneys at both ends of the roof. This was not the case with the approved dormer. I find that this attachment exacerbates the prominence of the width and form of the development. It therefore does not appear as a subordinate feature to the existing modest dwelling or terrace of characterful properties and would be disproportionate. This is consequently not a minor or insignificant change. The deviation from the guidance of the SPD therefore adversely affects the appearance of the building. 8. There are no other dormers on Wildes Cottages and given its width and form it has resulted in a dominant and overbearing structure that is harmful to the character of the terrace as a whole. This adversely affects the contribution of the terrace to the surrounding Conservation Area. The dormer therefore fails to respond to its local built context and the wider character of the heritage asset, even though public views would be limited. Whilst matching materials would be used, this would not diminish the harm arising from its scale. 9. I accept that the appeal dormer would not have an adverse impact on the living conditions of neighbouring properties and I appreciate the site is not the subject of further restrictive designations. However, this does not alter my view in relation to the harm I have identified. 10. I therefore conclude the development is detrimental to the original dwelling and row of terraced properties and neither preserves nor enhances the character or appearance of the Cheam Village Conservation Area. It therefore conflicts with Policies 28 and 30 of the London Borough of Sutton Local Plan 2016-2031, adopted February 2018, and the SPD. These are consistent with the heritage and design aims of the Framework and which require, amongst other things, that development should respect local context and respond to local character to conserve and where practicable enhance the borough’s historic environment. 11. In the terms of the Framework, the development results in less than substantial harm to the heritage asset and it must therefore be weighed against any public benefit that would arise from it. I appreciate the appellant aspires to provide additional space within his dwelling for his family. However, this would be a private benefit, which is not a matter that can be weighed against the harm to the heritage asset that I have identified. Appeal Decision APP/P5870/D/18/3216536 3 Conclusions 12. For these reasons and having regard to all other relevant matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Paul T Hocking INSPECTOR