Appeal 6002660

The appeal is dismissed.

During the course of the appeal, the Council adopted the Spelthorne Local Plan 2024-2039/40 (2026) (the LP) which supersedes the Spelthorne Development Plan Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (2009). Both parties make reference to the now adopted LP policies ST1, ST2 and PS2 in their submissions. [name] ST1 and ST2 do not relate directly to character and appearance, they have not been determinative in my consideration of this main issue. The adopted Policy PS2 has been modified as compared to the emerging policy submitted by the Council during this appeal. Although the changes are not determinative in relation to the proposed development, the appellant has been invited for comments. Accordingly, I have assessed the appeal in relation to Policy PS2 of the newly adopted LP.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the proposal comprises a new roof including increase in ridge height, a rear facing dormer to the existing house and a two-storey side extension with a rear facing dormer. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area.

[address] has uniform rows of two-storey terraced dwellings with pitched roofs and gable ends. Therefore, the area around the appeal site has a uniform, spacious character. The appeal property has a lower ridge and eaves height than the rest of the terrace and sits on a recessed building line. Much of its front elevation faces the gable end of another terrace at right angles, rendering it largely screened when viewed from the public highway. Overall, the appeal property reads as a subservient element at the end of the terrace.

The proposal would raise the eaves height above that of adjacent dwellings. Although the increase is modest and partly screened by the adjacent terrace, it would become more visible from various public viewpoints, including the highway. This would disrupt the established eaves line and erode the subservient appearance of the appeal property, resulting in a discordant and intrusive form of development that would fail to respect the unform character of the host building and wider terrace.

The proposed roof extension and two-storey side extension would also have a ridge height matching that of neighbouring properties of the same terrace. While this aspect is acceptable in isolation as the proposed ridge would not rise above the established terrace ridge line, together with the raised eaves height, the proposed roof extension would disrupt the existing roofscape of the terrace. It would consequently fail to appear subservient thereby harmfully diminishing the spacious quality of the area.

The proposed rear dormers would occupy most of the rear roof slope, creating a bulky and top-heavy addition. In particular, the dormer on the two-storey side extension would further erode the subservience of that extension, resulting in an incongruous and disproportionate addition to the host dwelling. While they would not be visible from windows along [address], they would be visible from the access road to [address] and from [address] as well as a number of dwellings along its eastern side. Given their scale and massing, the proposed dormers would appear incongruous in the street scene.

In reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Council’s Design of [name] and New Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document (2011) (the SPD). The SPD advises that dormers should be set in at least 1m from the roof edge, and 0.5m below the ridge and 1m above from the eaves. The proposed dormers would not comply with these guidelines.

It has been suggested that the proposed dormers are similar to works that may fall under permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (the GPDO). The appellant also contends that rear dormer windows could, in theory, be erected to all houses in the terrace without the need to apply for planning permission under the GPDO. However, it is not within my remit to determine whether the proposal would comply with the GPDO.

I have had regard to a proposed rear dormer at [address], which benefits from a certificate of lawfulness. However, given their position at the end of the terrace, the proposed dormers would not be directly comparable in terms of the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. In addition, the proposed dormers would be more visible from the access road to [address] and from [address] than the roof of No 8. I have also considered the rear dormer at [address]. This appears to have been constructed on the original terrace, whereas the proposed dormers would be on an extension to the original terrace. Furthermore, No 13 is not part of the same terrace as the appeal property and is therefore not directly comparable. Consequently, neither example provides a convincing precedent that would lead me to a different conclusion on the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The Council raises no objection to the two-storey side extension, noting that planning permission has previously been granted for a similar form of development. Based on the evidence before me, I see no basis to reach a different conclusion on this particular aspect.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed extension would harm the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. This is contrary to Policy PS2 of the LP, which, amongst other considerations, requires developments to respect and make positive contribution to the street scene and the character of the area.

I note the appeal site has an extensive planning history, including previous approvals. However, those schemes involved different forms of extension with various designs and are not directly comparable to the appeal proposal.

I acknowledge the appellant’s intention to provide additional living space within the loft and that the scheme would, in a modest way, support the objective of the National Planning Policy Framework of making effective use of land. However, the additional accommodation would mainly benefit the existing occupiers and offer limited public benefits, and the contribution to efficient land use would be minor. These considerations do not outweigh the harm I have identified.

The Council has raised no objection regarding the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and I see no basis on the evidence before me to reach a different conclusion. Nevertheless, the lack of harm in this aspect is effectively neutral in my determination of the appeal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and that there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.