Appeal 3301486

The appeal is dismissed.

Both the Council and the Appellant, as well as a number of local residents, have made reference to the use of the property; that is not before me. The property is in residential use and at the time of my site visit both the loft floor rooms (marked 1 and 2) were in use as bedrooms.

The main issues in this appeal are: a) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and on the local area, and b) Whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupants.

The appeal property is a modest, infill detached property with accommodation in the roof within a predominantly residential area. The accommodation in the roof, which currently comprises two rooms, are served by a number of roof lights.

The proposal seeks to introduce a number of dormer windows to the roof slopes to improve the accommodation in the roof space. These would include three hipped roof dormers on the front elevation and three hipped roof dormers on the right flank elevation, as well as a larger flat roofed box dormer on the rear elevation with two windows, extending round to the left flank elevation but with no windows.

The dormer to the rear roof slope and extending to the left flank elevation would be a very large addition to the roof slope. The dormers would appear cumbersome and overly bulky in relation to the proportions and massing of the existing property and would result in the roof becoming ‘top heavy’ and unbalancing the proportions of the dwelling.

Although at the rear, and contrary to the views expressed by the Appellant, I consider that the proposed dormers at the rear would be seen in some views from the street, particularly when approaching from [address] South. For the reasons set out above, they would be visually obtrusive in such views. I have taken into account that the proposed materials would match the existing roof materials, but the proposed additional bulk and massing would unbalance the property and be visually obtrusive in street scene views. Furthermore, the siting of these dormers at the rear of the house would not in my view obviate the need to seek a high quality design solution.

I therefore consider that the proposed dormers and particularly the large box dormer at the rear and on the left flank elevation would harm the character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area. This would conflict with Policy CS17 of the [name] 2011, Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015, the Design and Character Supplementary Planning Document ([name] 2012 as well as the National Planning Policy Framework, and in particular Section 12, all of which amongst other matters, seek a high quality of design which respects the local context.

The Appellant has drawn my attention to other roof extensions in the local area. I have taken these into account on the basis of the information available, but it is a fundamental planning principle that each proposal must be considered on its individual merits. Good design should be the aim of all those involved in the design process and I find this scheme to fall short of the high standards that national and local policies seek to promote. None of these other examples persuade me to a different view given the harm I have concluded under this issue.

The existing accommodation in the roof serves two bedrooms, with roof lights some of which are in obscure glazing. The details are not clearly shown but the plans are marked to indicate that the proposed windows on the right flank elevation and the rear elevation would have obscure glazing, at least at the lower levels.

There is a balance to be struck between protecting the amenities of neighbours from overlooking and loss of privacy as well as the living conditions of future occupants of the appeal property. I agree with the Council that, notwithstanding the planting along the respective boundaries, the windows in the side and rear elevations would need to be obscure glazed to protect the amenities of the neighbours at No 1 Greenways and residential properties on [address] South, with particular regard to overlooking and loss of privacy.

I have noted the Appellant’s comments regarding the preference for obscure glazing in bedrooms, but the permission would endure for future occupants and owners.

Although the use of the rooms is not specified, they were in use as bedrooms at the time of my site visit. The Framework is clear at Paragraph 130 that planning decisions should, amongst other matters, create places ..... with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. This objective is also set out at a local level.

I do not consider that a room, potentially in use as a habitable room, with all or largely obscure glazed windows only, as would be the case with loft room 1, would provide a satisfactory living environment for future occupants with particular regard to outlook. It would create an oppressive internal environment. This would conflict with Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015 as well as the Framework and in particular Paragraph 130 f) in this regard.

The Appellant has offered to accept a condition that would restrict the use of the room marked [name] 1 and were no other matters of concern and planning permission were to be granted, this might be addressed as a potential way to overcome the harm found under this issue.

I have had regard to other comments that have been made in respect of the proposal, including in terms of its use and the impact on traffic and parking. None of these affect my findings and were not reasons for refusal raised by the Council.

The Appellant has raised a number of concerns about the way that the proposal was processed by the Council, but my decision has been based solely on its planning merits as I am required so to do.

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