Appeal 6003447

The application submitted to the Council described the proposed development as set out above. This description was modified by the local planning authority to reflect what was both proposed and where permission was sought to retain works already undertaken, and further plans were submitted to reflect these matters. This was reflected in an amended description on the decision notice.

It was clarified at the appeal stage what plans had been submitted by the applicants and that the decision notice contained an error in listing certain refused plans. The plans determined by the Council which show the proposed works were those submitted during the course of the application, namely E-2008-B-03 [name] and G-2008-B-07 [name]. The details of the scheme are set out on those drawings and the applicants’ Design and [name].

I am satisfied from information provided to me that the appellants agreed to both the change of description and the scope of the proposals shown on the submitted plans. I have therefore determined this appeal on the basis of seeking planning permission for a proposed single storey rear glazed extension and detached carport, replacement boundary wall, and retention of alterations to fenestration.

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the detached carport and replacement boundary wall. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the proposed single storey rear glazed extension and retention of alterations to fenestration, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00937/FLH, and the plans listed below so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted, and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on the approved plans and the Design and [name].

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: E-2008-B-03 [name] and G-2008-B-07 [name].

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the [address] Conservation Area.

The property is a semi-detached house that is situated at the end of a narrow lane within the Worple Conservation Area. That Area covers a residential suburb dating from the mid to late 19th Century, with a variety of terraced cottages, semi-detached and larger houses. There is diversity in the appearance and form of buildings, along with variety in the use of materials including brick, render and flint. The architectural details of buildings also differ across the Area. These materials and the domestic scale of the houses – set within the street layout and small lanes across the Area – give a restrained village-type character to the locality, and the significance as a heritage asset derives from these characteristics.

The proposals contain a number of distinct elements, and I address these in turn.

The Council raise no objection to the proposed single storey glazed extension. I agree that it is of appropriate design, with a scale proportionate to the main house.

The submissions from the appellants demonstrate to me that the property was in a poor condition before certain works were carried out. This included uPVC windows of poor design, and I saw some remaining windows of that clumsy appearance at my site visit. The windows proposed in this appeal – some of which have been installed – are aluminium with matt pastel green shade finish. The frames are slimline, with astragal bars integral to the glazing.

I am satisfied the fenestration and the proportions of the windows are consistent with the appearance and form of the house, and the wider area where there is variety in windows. The windows would not open as traditional sliding sash, but when they are open the form of opening is not an intrusion into the area that would materially impact upon the character of the Conservation Area. Whilst there are not pale green windows in the immediate vicinity, I concur with appellants that such an appearance is not discordant when seen against the whitewashed house; I saw at my site visit there is diversity in the colour of houses and windows in the vicinity and the wider Conservation Area.

The windows are therefore a change to the building that is suitable in the context of the existing property and the wider area, and represent an improvement over the previous appearance of the house. The windows are of high thermal efficiency, which is a wider benefit through reducing energy use for the property. The single storey extension would also be acceptable. In these regards, the character and appearance of the Conservation Area would be preserved, and thus the significance of the heritage asset would not be harmed.

The drawings show the replacement of the existing timber boundary fence and the erection of a block-built wall to be painted white. An important feature in the views towards the appeal property along the lane from [address], and along the footpaths in the vicinity, are the flint walls in the area. A white painted block wall of the length shown would be a stark contrast to this. This would be emphasised by the uncomfortable junction with the existing long flint wall on the southern boundary of the lane.

The proposed car port is shown as an open-framed steel structure with translucent sheet roof. This would be a poor design in terms of materials, scale, form and appearance, with no design cues from the area. It would be in a prominent position that is widely visible.

The proposed replacement wall and the car port would thus be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The significance of the heritage asset would be harmed, and I attach considerable importance and weight to this harm. That harm would be less than substantial and so, in accordance with paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework, must be considered against the public benefit of these elements of the proposal. The benefits of these parts of the scheme are private, and so there are no public benefits arising from these two aspects of the proposed works that would outweigh the harm identified.

On the first main issue it is my conclusion that the proposed single storey extension and the alterations to the fenestration would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and so comply with the provisions of Policies CS1 and CS5 of the Epsom and [name] 2007 and Policies DM8, DM9 and DM10 of the Epsom and Ewell Development Management Policies Document 2015 which, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that development is of high quality and contributes positively to the area, is sympathetic to local character, and that heritage assets and protected and enhanced. The proposed detached carport and replacement boundary wall would harm the character and appearance of the Area and so conflict with these policies.

A tree survey was submitted during the course of the application that demonstrated to the Council’s Arboricultural Officer there would be no adverse impact on nearby trees. I see no reason to differ from that conclusion.

The proposed extension is of a scale that would not cause unacceptable impact on neighbouring properties by virtue of any overbearing effect or loss of light, and is distant enough to ensure no loss of privacy.

The Council have not suggested any conditions other than the standard ones in the event of the appeal being allowed. I have modified the condition requiring matching materials, as the plans and the Design and [name] specify the materials to be used.

I have attached the condition specifying the approved plans in the interests of precision.

For the reasons given, I have found the proposed single storey rear glazed extension and the retention of alterations to fenestration are acceptable and consistent with the development plan. These elements of work are clearly severable from the two elements that are unacceptable, namely the detached carport and replacement boundary wall. I have therefore issued a split decision allowing the appeal in respect of the former, and dismissing in respect of the latter.