Appeal 3308859

The appeal is dismissed.

The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

Chessington Hill Park is part of a wider housing estate characterised by a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties that are predominantly two storey but of varying designs. The road rises uphill, and no. 110 is a two storey detached dwelling located at the end of the road. A footpath adjacent to no. [address] with [address] which abuts the side elevation of the property.

The appeal property is in a prominent position located at the top of Chessington Hill Park and the side elevation is on the outside of a bend in [address]. The proposal would extend the property upwards to provide a complete third floor which requires a significant height increase. From my observations the majority of properties within the vicinity are two storey, therefore the proposal would be higher than surrounding dwellings.

The proposed increase in height would be exaggerated due to the property’s prominent position in the street which would out of keeping with its surroundings in terms of building height, particularly along [address]. The materials would match the existing dwelling and would be acceptable and the design is in keeping with the existing dwelling. However, due to the height of the proposed extension, it would, in this setting make the property appear incongruous and inconsistent with the surrounding properties.

For these reasons I conclude that the proposed extension would have a negative effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore fail to accord with Policies CS8 and DM10 of the Royal Borough of Kingston

(LP) and Policy D3 of The London Plan ([name] 2021) (TLP), which between them require that proposed developments relate well to and connect to their surroundings, and contribute positively to the character and local distinctiveness of an area.

Due to the orientation of the dwelling and position of the extension on the dwelling in relation to neighbouring properties, the extension would not affect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, this matter does not affect the considerations that have led to my decision.

The report of the Council's Officer into this application appears to be in a draft format with several unclear elements. The report has referred to a recommendation for approval subject to conditions. However, the main body of the report and decision notice indicate this is a typographical error.

The report of the Council’s Officer refers to the site being in the Green Belt. The Council has since confirmed that this was a drafting error, and the site is not within the Green Belt therefore I am satisfied that the proposal does not affect openness.

I note that the Council considered that the proposal did not affect flood risk or heritage assets, I have no reason to disagree with these conclusions based on the information provided.

The above matters relating to the report of the Council’s Officer do not affect the considerations that have led to my decision.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the second floor extension would not accord with Policies CS8 and DM10 of the LP or Policy D3 of TLP. Although the proposal does not conflict with other policies of the development plan, this leads me to conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. Thus, having had regard to all other matters raised the appeal is dismissed.