Appeal 3321549

The appeal is dismissed.

Since it more accurately describes the nature of the proposal the description of the development used in the Council’s decision notice has been adopted in preference to that seen in the original application form.

The main issue is the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling setin a part of the street comprised of similar good quality residential development, albeit of varied designs. The submitted elevational drawings tend to give a misleading impression in that they do not show the garage below the dwelling at the front and that the dwelling is set back and elevated well above road level. It is also built on a hill, and the plots of neighbouring houses are stepped to take account of the difference in levels.

One of the common attributes of the varying designs of the immediately neighbouring dwellings on this side of the street is that they are largely comprised of hipped or gabled roofs. These features contribute positively to provide a sense of spaciousness at roof level even when the gaps between houses below are not particularly generous.

The effect of the proposed development would be to extend the dwelling’s side walls vertically upwards thus adding considerable bulk at roof level and reducing the sense of spaciousness currently in evidence. I share the Council’s view that the additions at roof level would appear incongruous and, as a consequence, the appearance and current proportionality of the dwelling would be materially affected, harmfully so. That the dwelling is elevated above its neighbour at No 45 would accentuate the harm when viewed from the street below because of the exposed and prominent position of the roof. The harm I have described at roof level would also be clearly seen at the rear when viewed from parts of the public footpath (No 117) which runs alongside No 49.

I conclude that the development would materially and harmfully affect the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings. Accordingly, I find that a clear conflict arises with the thrust of those provisions of policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (CLP) directed to achieving high quality design and respecting local character and the objectives of policy D3 of the London Plan directed to optimising site capacity through the design-led approach.

The appellants claim a fall-back, in the sense that permitted development rights are said to exist. However, in the absence of a certificate of lawfulness it does not fall to me to determine what is, or is not, permitted development, and I therefore give this aspect little weight. The appeal proposal clearly requires planning permission, and the appeal has therefore being determined on this basis having regard to the provisions of the development plan and other material considerations.

I have also taken account of the appellants’ references to other built forms in the street, including that at No 69a, but that dwelling it seems to me is some distance from the appeal property, away from its immediate sphere of visual influence.

All other matters referred to in the representations have been taken into account, but no other matter is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations that led me to my conclusions.