Appeal 6003020

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development reflects the substance of the development as described in the planning application form, albeit edited for clarity.

The application subject to this appeal was submitted retrospectively. At the time of my site visit, the external works as described in the banner heading above were already in place. From my observations, the development appeared to broadly reflect the submitted plans. Nonetheless, for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of those plans.

The scheme comprises a gable roof extension with rear dormer and a single storey rear extension. The Council’s case does not challenge the single storey extension; it is not cited in the reason for refusal and the submitted evidence identifies no conflict with relevant development plan policies. Following my site visit, I find no reason to disagree. Accordingly, the focus of this appeal is the gable roof extension with rear dormer.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the building and the area, including whether it would preserve and enhance the Wrythe Green Conservation Area.

The appeal site lies within the Wrythe Green Conservation Area (WGCA). As such I have had regard to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which requires that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

The site comprises an end‐of‐terrace, two‐storey dwelling within an interwar run of housing fronting [address]. Together with the adjoining terrace of similar form, it defines the southern edge of the WGCA. While the principal significance of the Conservation Area derives from the historic Green, the surrounding built form contributes to its sense of enclosure. The interwar terraces make a modest contribution through their group value. Their simple architectural treatment, consistent roofscape, uniform detailing and uninterrupted building line establish a regular rhythm that reinforces the ordered suburban character of this part of the WGCA. The limited extent of alterations or extensions that disrupt this uniformity is a notable characteristic of the group.

To the west, beyond the WGCA, lies the publicly accessible Wrythe Green Recreation Ground. From the main body of this area, the flank and rear of the appeal property and both terraces were clearly visible at the time of my visit, with views obtained through and between a line of boundary trees that were not in leaf. When in leaf, these trees would provide greater screening, though their canopy heights and the gaps between them would still allow filtered views. Other than a single large inset dormer on the adjoining dwelling, views of the rear roof slopes read as a largely uninterrupted plane. Mature trees along the recreation ground’s frontage provide appreciable screening from further west along [address], limiting visibility from that public vantage point.

The development has introduced a gable end to the main roof, together with a rear dormer extending across both the enlarged roof slope and most of the original rear plane. The dormer aligns with the new gable, its flat roof finishing just below the main ridge and running close to the shared roof boundary. It projects to a point a little short of the rear wall and incorporates a Juliet‐style balustrade within its rear elevation.

In most views from within the WGCA, the principal visible change is the new gable end which, while introducing some imbalance to the terrace, is not in itself unduly detracting. Nonetheless, from the area immediate to the entrance of Wrythe Green Road, which affords a broad view of the WGCA, the combined effect of the gable and rear dormer is more pronounced. In side profile, the dormer cheek increases the perceived bulk of the gable and reduces the legibility of the original roof form. The dormer’s extensive flat roof further accentuates the altered shape, producing a discordant form that dominates the roofscape and results in a substantial loss of the dwelling’s original pitched roof profile. Rather than reading as a subordinate addition, the development overwhelms the host dwelling and disrupts the simplicity and coherence of this part of the terrace. This would be similar in views from the [name]. Matching materials do not mitigate this harm, which arises from the scale and form of the alterations.

Although the degree of harm is localised and most apparent in particular viewpoints, the development nevertheless detracts from the character and appearance of the host building and appears discordant in the context of the terrace’s otherwise coherent form. In turn, it diminishes the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including this part of the WGCA, which harms its significance. I find this harm to be less than substantial and to lie at the lower end of that spectrum. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that this harm be weighed against the public benefits of the development.

In undertaking that exercise, and in accordance with Paragraph 212 of the Framework, I have given great weight to the conservation of the designated heritage asset. [name] recognise that the scheme would deliver some benefits, the increase in habitable accommodation, though important to the appellant and his family, is largely private in nature and of limited wider benefit. The development makes a small contribution to the family housing stock within the borough, and any improvement in the quality of the accommodation arising from the removal of the previous rear extension and the provision of additional living space would be modest. These benefits therefore attract only limited weight and when taken together are insufficient to outweigh the great weight I must afford to conserving the character and appearance of the WGCA and its significance.

The Council is satisfied the development does not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbours. A lack of harm in respect of this and other considerations is neutral in the heritage balance rather than weighing in favour of the scheme.

In the absence of sufficient public benefits to outweigh the harm identified, the development fails to meet the requirements of the Sutton Local Plan (2018). It harms the character and appearance of the building and the immediate area and does not preserve the character and appearance of this part of the WGCA. It therefore conflicts with Policies 28 and 30, which together seek high‐quality design that preserves or enhances the character and appearance of conservation areas.

Although not referred to in its [name], the Council has identified three [name] listed buildings in the surrounding area. From my observations at the site visit, the appeal site is some distance from these buildings and intervening development limits intervisibility between them. Consequently, were I minded to allow the appeal, in light of the duty under S66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, this would have required further consideration. However, as I have concluded that the appeal should in any case be dismissed, I have not addressed the matter further.

The appellant has drawn my attention to several other extensions, including within and near the WGCA, which are said to set a precedent for the development. While some details of these schemes have been provided, the appellant invites me to seek further documentation from the Council where information is not available on its website. The appeal must be determined on the evidence before me and therefore I have considered the submitted material. On that basis, I am not satisfied the cited developments are directly comparable in terms of their scale, design or relationship to their surroundings and from what I observed. In any event, each proposal must be determined on its own merits, and these examples do not justify a different conclusion in this case.

I note the appellant’s assertion that he was advised the development was permitted development. While this is unfortunate, the appeal must be determined on its planning merits, and this matter does not affect my findings on the main issue.

I have found that the development causes harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area, including the conservation area and its significance. It therefore does not comply with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no other considerations which outweigh this. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.