Appeal 3338658

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

[address] comprises a mixture of detached and semi-detached 1930s properties. There is a consistency in the architectural details, materials and ridge heights. No.7 is a detached property with a gabled roof and the neighbouring property, No.5, is of the same form. The pitched gabled roof to the front is a particular feature along [address] and creates a rhythm and spacing to the properties. The separation between the appeal property and No.5 is limited, whereas on the other side is an intervening garage and No.9 has an offset alignment.

Extending towards No.5, and adding roof dormers to both sides, the proposal would fundamentally alter the appearance of the property, adding significant massing to the roof. It would create a bulky and top-heavy appearance which would be out of keeping with the prevailing roof forms.

The dormers are to be set down from the main ridgeline, however, this is achieved by raising the ridge of the original property. This is to accommodate internal ceiling heights, and the increase to the ridge height is limited. Nonetheless, it would erode the symmetry with No. 5 and change the proportions of the property compared to the rest of the street. In my view, this would draw further attention within the street scene, emphasising what would be an alien feature and disrupting the existing pattern of development.

While the appellant suggests that the design responds to the semi-detached pair at Nos.1 & 3, the form is different, with smaller front gable projections set down from the main roof. In contrast, the proposed dormers are designed with a flat roof which would create a very different roof profile. I have also been referred to extensions to other properties within the vicinity. While they demonstrate that the Council has permitted increases in ridge heights, side dormers and other extensions, the examples relate to a range of property styles and locations. None are directly comparable to the form and design of the appeal proposal, and each case is to be considered on its own merits.

Overall, I find that the proposed development would be a dominant and incongruous addition to the host property and would be visually intrusive in the street scene. The development would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and thus would fail to accord with Policy EE1 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan (2020). There would also be conflict with the Council’s Design - Supplementary Planning Document (2021) and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Together these promote high-quality design and require that development respects the character of the area.

I understand the appellant’s desire for extra space to accommodate their growing family, and that the scheme has been amended. Nonetheless, whilst there would be some economic and social benefits, the public benefits would be limited, and there are no other matters which outweigh the conflict with the

For the reasons set out and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.