Loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 July 2026 By Michael Evans BA MA MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011820 Prestwych, 62 West Drive, Cheam SM2 7NA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Nicholas Sanders against the decision of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council. • The application Ref is 26/00323/FLH. • The development proposed is described on the application form as “loft conversion”. Preliminary matter 1. The Council on the decision notice and the Appellant on the appeal form have used the same description of development. This more accurately describes the proposal than that given on the application form, and I have used this in the decision below. Decision 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a double hip to gable roof extension to accommodate a habitable space, incorporating a rear dormer and front rooflights, at Prestwych, 62 West Drive, Cheam SM2 7NA, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/00323/FLH and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: CO/NS/01, CO/RES/02, CO/NS/03, Block Plan at scale of 1:500 and Location Plan at scale of 1:1250. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect on the character and appearance of the locality. Reasons 4. The proposal concerns a two storey detached dwelling where the windows of the proposed rear dormer addition would not align with those below. However, those at the rear of the existing dwelling do not have any particularly strong degree of alignment and vary significantly in their size. The windows at the back of the adjacent dwelling at no 64 also fail to exhibit any meaningful alignment. The new Appeal Decision 6011820 2 windows would not be unduly large or close by comparison to the existing openings. In these circumstances they would not give rise to a cluttered appearance with the pattern of fenestration being acceptable. 5. The proposed dormer addition would be set down from the top of the new crown roof as well as being set in from the sides of the enlarged main roof and up from the eaves. In consequence, although being about 7.6m wide with the majority of the rear slope being covered, the extent of the enlarged host roof would still remain apparent due to these gaps. The property would, as a result, appear as a two storey dwelling with additional accommodation in the roof, rather than seeming to have three full storeys. 6. Moreover, although significantly narrower than that now proposed, I saw at my site visit that the dormer additions at nearby properties were not set down from the top of the roof and in one case rose above it. As a result, these are fairly prominent features. There are also crown roofs in the immediate vicinity at Nos 58 and 64 that are significantly larger than that now proposed. These give the properties concerned a relatively bulky character. In this context and despite its width, the proposed dormer extension would not be excessive in scale or result in a top heavy and overdeveloped appearance, even in conjunction with the proposed crown roof. 7. Due to these factors and regardless of being seen from adjacent gardens and the playing fields to the north the development would not therefore result in harm to the character and appearance of the locality. There would be compliance with Core Strategy 2007, Policy CS5 and Development Management Policies Document 2015, Policies DM9 and DM10, which taken together and, among other things, intend that development should be of a high quality design, compatible with local character and respect the scale, form and massing of the street. 8. In the Council’s Householder Applications: Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), 2004, it is indicated that windows in dormers should be aligned to relate to those below and such additions should not be more than two metres wide. The development would conflict with this guidance. However, given the compatibility of the development with its surroundings and the absence of any adverse visual impact, there are compelling reasons for not rigidly applying this guidance so that an exception to the SPG is warranted in this instance. 9. In the National Planning Policy Framework, it is indicated that decisions should ensure that developments satisfy a number of considerations. These include that the proposed development should be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character, which would be achieved by the development. 10. In this case there would be no harm and compliance with the development plan. Moreover, there are no other considerations that would justify making a decision other than in accordance with the development plan so that the appeal is allowed. In the interest of certainty, a condition specifying the approved plans should be imposed. The materials used should match those of the host dwelling to protect the appearance of the locality. M Evans INSPECTOR