Appeal 3333951

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council has advised that Policy BE1 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Development Plan was referred to erroneously in the reasons for refusal set out on the refusal notice. I will therefore not take this policy in consideration in my determination of this appeal.

I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the appearance of the street scene and the character and appearance of the wider area.

The appeal property, [site address] , is a detached gable roofed ‘L’ shaped bungalow. One leg of the building has a steep, double pitched roof while the other has a single steep pitched roof. This former gate lodge was designed and detailed in a [name] style. All traces of the gate and driveway have been lost and it now sits in the centre of a triangular plot on a prominent corner site. Nevertheless, the property is generally well screened by tall mature trees, hedges and close boarded fencing.

The appellant proposes the removal of the twin gable roof and, while maintaining the same pitch, eaves and ridge line, seeks to replace it with a new mansard style roof. Three shallow pitched dormer windows are proposed spaced evenly along both sides of the mansard roof. In addition, the dwelling would be extended about 1.0 metres towards the south-western boundary, with a small, high-level window in the new gable wall. Due to the established mature boundary planting the mansard roof and its gable wall would not be open to public view.

Given that the form and appearance of the existing double pitched roof is already denuded by the earlier introduction of a flat roof dormer built in the valley, the new gable end is well screened from public view and the pitch, eaves and ridge lines of the original roof would be maintained I do not share the Council’s concern in respect of the visual harm due to alteration to the form and structure of the roof.

However, I consider that the six new dormers by reason of the shallow pitched roofs, height, relationship with the roof and fenestration design would, in the context of the style and design of the host building appear as visually incongruous alien features. The Council describe the dormer windows as subordinate features. Nevertheless, unlike the mansard roof, they would, as illustrated on the photographs provided in evidence, be open to public view. Therefore, they would in my judgement cause significant harm to the appearance of the existing dwelling as well as the character and appearance of the street scene.

Accordingly, I conclude in respect of the main issue that although the modest extension and the mansard roof would be acceptable, the proposed dormers would, due to their design cause significant harm to the architectural integrity of the existing bungalow and thereby the street scene.

To allow the development as designed would therefore be contrary to the aims of Policy CS21 of the Woking Local Development Document-Woking Core Strategy ([name] 2012), the residential extensions section of the Woking Design SPD-Supplementary Planning Document Design ([name] 2015) (SPD), and the national Planning Policy Framework, as they relate, along with other things, to the quality of development and the need for it to respect and make a positive contribution to the street scene and the character of the area.

I note the Council found the design would not have an adverse impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers, transport and issues of drainage and flooding could be addressed by condition. Based on what I have seen and read I would not disagree with its findings on these issues. Further, I am aware that there were no third party objections to the application. However, the absence of harm is a neutral factor in my considerations and, as such, I have given these matters very little weight in my decision.

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