Appeal 3295917

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider that the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the semi-detached pair and the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property, [site address] , is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling on a corner plot. The original house has previously been extended, by way of a well-mannered subservient addition to one side.

This residential area is characterised by a rich mix of mainly two-storey dwellings.

The appellant proposes the alteration of the roof over the original main house to form a new second floor addition.

By reason of the height of the new north east flank wall, the flat roof/pitched fascia design of the new roof, the raised eaves line, fenestration pattern and resulting utilitarian façade the proposed extension would appear as a wholly contrived, unattractive and incongruous addition.

Accordingly, the proposed extension would cause significant harm to the architectural integrity of the host property, the semi-detached pair and the character and appearance of the area.

To allow the development would be contrary to the aims of Policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan ([name] 2019), Policy CS4 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan Core Strategy ([name] 2014) and the Supplementary Planning Guidance-Householder Extensions and Alterations ([name] 2004) as they relate, amongst other things to the quality of development.

I note the appellant requirements for the additional accommodation and the need to replace the existing roof. [name] am sympathetic to these considerations, they do not outweigh the substantial harm that I have identified in this case.

I appreciate that matching materials are proposed, and there are no objections from neighbours to the development. However, the absence of harm and objection are neutral factors in my consideration. As such, I have given these matters very limited weight in my decision.

The appellant has drawn my attention to examples of similar developments, particular design details to those proposed found elsewhere in the area. Further, I note that the new extension would be of an energy efficient design. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm that I have identified in this case.

The appellant also suggests that the proposal would be more attractive than a possible permitted development proposal. However, as this would be subject to separate consideration and as there is limited evidence to suggest that the impacts described by the appellant would come to pass, this consideration has minimal weight in my decision.

I am sympathetic to the fact that the appeal proposal is a redesign, taking into account pre-application advice and issues raised during the consideration of the original scheme design by the Council. However, I can only assess the current proposal based on the design before me.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.