Appeal 6002603

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, including the Surrey Hills National Landscape.

The appeal property forms one half of a semi-detached pair situated on the southern side of [site address] . The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and comprises a mixture of detached and semi-detached dwellings. The appeal site is located within the Surrey Hills National Landscape (SHNL).

[site address] rises noticeably in level along its length and this sloping topography allows clear sequential views of the dwellings and roofscape when travelling along the road. Whilst several properties feature extensions and there is some variation in architectural detailing and materials, the street nevertheless exhibits a strong and recognisable pattern of semi-detached dwellings with broadly consistent hipped roof forms. The repeated hipped roofs contribute positively to the rhythm, continuity and balanced appearance of the street scene.

The appeal property presently forms part of a balanced pair of semi-detached dwellings with a shared ridge line and matching hipped roof profiles. The proposed development would replace the existing side hip with a full gable end, materially altering the roof form of the dwelling and disrupting the balanced appearance of the pair. Whilst the proposal would not increase the ridge height and would not incorporate bulky dormer structures, the visual effect of the altered roof form would nevertheless be pronounced.

The proposed gable would introduce a more abrupt and visually assertive termination to the roof which would erode the symmetry of the pair and interrupt the established pattern of hipped roofs that characterises this part of [site address] . Due to the sloping nature of the road, the altered roof form would be readily perceptible within longer views along the street where the consistent rhythm of roof profiles is particularly appreciable. The proposal would therefore appear incongruous within its immediate context and would detract from the cohesive character of the surrounding street scene.

The appellant refers to a number of nearby loft conversions and roof alterations in support of the appeal. However, I find these examples either materially different or of limited assistance in determining the appeal proposal.

The appellant places significant reliance upon the appeal decision relating to Wiggie House1. However, that scheme involved rear and side dormers rather than a hip-to-gable conversion. The Inspector’s conclusions in that case related principally to the effect of the dormers and whether they would appear bulky, dominant or incongruous. Importantly, the proposal at [address] retained the essential hipped roof form of the dwelling. By contrast, the appeal proposal before me would fundamentally alter the side roof profile through the replacement of the hip with a full-height gable. Consequently, I do not find the [address] appeal directly comparable. The possibility of a future matching development at the adjoining property is speculative and carries little weight in the determination of the current proposal.

Similarly, the approved development at 23 Dents Grove2 related to rear dormer extensions within a materially different setting characterised by properties with pitched roofs and gables. The roof alteration at Quebec, on [site address] , is also of limited assistance. There is no substantive evidence before me regarding the planning circumstances under which that development was carried out. In any event, it is a discordant alteration in my view. Indeed, viewed within the street scene, the roof alteration at Quebec appears visually awkward and is not comparable to the proposal. It does not serve to persuade me that the appeal proposal would integrate successfully within its surroundings.

The approved scheme at Brae Cottage3 is the most comparable example referred to by the appellant because it involved a hip-to-gable extension. Nevertheless, I am mindful that design considerations are highly site-specific. The character and visual composition of the immediate surroundings at [address] differ from those at the appeal site. In particular, the appeal property occupies part of a notably coherent sequence of semi-detached dwellings along a sloping section of [site address] where the repeated hipped roofs form an especially distinctive and visually prominent characteristic. I therefore do not consider the approval at [address] justifies a similar outcome in this case.

Turning to the SHNL, the National Planning Policy Framework requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty in these areas, which is the statutory purpose of such landscapes. I am mindful of my duties to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes. The Surrey Hills Management Plan 2020-2025 outlines the special qualities of the SHNL which has been designated in part because of the natural beauty of the landscape consisting of a mosaic of hills and valleys, 1 Appeal ref APP/L3625/D/16/3155984 2 Application ref 17/03023/HHOLD 3 Application ref 21/01308/HHOLD traditional mixed farming, a patchwork of chalk grassland and heathland, sunken lanes, picturesque villages and market towns.

I do not find that the proposal would result in any significant wider landscape harm. The site is relatively well screened by mature vegetation, it lies within an established residential area, and the proposal would be experienced primarily within the context of the built environment rather than the wider countryside. Nevertheless, the National Landscape designation does not diminish the importance of maintaining high quality design and local distinctiveness within settlements located inside it. In this instance, whilst the proposal would not harm the scenic beauty of the wider landscape, it would still detract from the local townscape character of this part of [site address] for the reasons I have given above.

I note the appellant’s contention that the proposal would be well designed, use matching materials and avoid the bulky dormers previously refused at the site. I also recognise that the proposal would not result in unacceptable effects on neighbouring living conditions, a matter not disputed by the Council. However, these considerations do not outweigh the identified harm to the character and appearance of the pair of dwellings and the wider street scene.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with Policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan 2019 as well as the guidance contained within the Council’s Householder Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) insofar as they seek to ensure proposals are of high-quality design, respect the visual appearance of the immediate street scene and respond positively to local character.

I acknowledge that the SPG dates from 2004 and predates the subsequent changes to the development plan. Nevertheless, it remains a material consideration and its guidance relating to roof alterations and local character remains broadly consistent with the objectives of Policy DES1.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.