Appeal 6003977

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed extensions on the character and appearance of the host property and area.

[address] is fronted by long rows of detached, semi-detached and terraced houses of different but traditional designs that are set on consistent building lines facing the road. Those houses generally fall into one of two broadly identifiable types that are unified by pitched main roofs and undisrupted front and side roof slopes, save for a small number of exceptions1. Those types generally consist either of wide fronted semi-detached and terraced dwellings with their main roof ridges running parallel to the road, or gabled fronted and often narrower detached houses with their main roof ridges running parallel to the road and deep flank elevations.

The appeal property is an example of the latter. Together with Number 68A, it forms one half of a pair of semi-detached dwellings, each with narrow gable fronted façades of similar proportions, long roof ridgelines running parallel to the road and deep flank elevations with side facing roof slopes. In street level views, the appeal property and Number 68A are visibly consistent with the character and appearance of the area. The appeal dwelling therefore makes a positive contribution to the street scene.

The proposal would involve raising the height of the appeal dwelling’s roof and constructing side facing dormers that would span across a large area of its roof, leaving only short lengths of pitched roof at the front and rear. In longer distance street level views from an oblique angle, a large part of the flank wall of the 1 Such as at Numbers 49 and 81. northwest facing dormer would be obscured by the existing pitched roof of Number 68A, as most of its built form would be set back from its façade. However, in shorter distance views from the street, including direct angle views towards the host dwelling’s façade and through the gap between it and Number 64, the dormers would be clearly visible within the roofscape.

Although both dormers would be set back from the host dwelling’s front gable and the short length of pitched roof, they would occupy relatively prominent positions set high up in the roofscape. With no discernible step down from the short front ridge line and only a small set back from the eaves, the elevated bulk of their large box-like forms would mostly subsume and obliterate the characteristic appearance of the host dwelling’s existing pitched roof form.

The proposed dormers would give the host dwelling a boxy and bulky top-heavy appearance. It would be incongruous in the context of the host dwelling’s existing pitched sloping roof form and those in the roofscape of the wider street scene. Using matching materials for its external surfaces would not overcome this harm. The stepped relationship between the appeal property’s façade and that of Number 68A would not hide the proposed roof extension in the street scene, nor would it mitigate the incongruity of its appearance.

The guidance in the [name] 2024 (“the EDC”) does not amount to an embargo on flat roofed dormers. However, the overarching principle in EDC paragraph 6.5.1 is that roof extensions and dormers should help maintain the style and appearance of the existing building and should avoid dominating the roofscape from a wider view. For the reasons given above, the appeal proposal would not accord with those principles in the EDC.

There are sizeable box-like roof dormers on the side facing roof slopes of the gable fronted houses at Numbers 49 and [address] that are visible in the street scene. However, they are single dormers that are confined to one roof slope. They are set back from the roof ridge and eaves of their host roof, and they do not span across the roof ridge. Consequently, they are materially different to the appeal dormer. Furthermore, the circumstances that led to them being built are not before me and I am unaware whether they required planning permission in the first place. In any case, dormers of that scale are not so prevalent along [address] that they establish a visual context in which the harm caused by the appeal scheme would be absorbed into.

Consequently, neither of those existing side facing dormers justify the harm that would be caused to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area by the appeal scheme. They do not alter my conclusions on this main issue, which I have determined on its individual merits based on the evidence before me, the prevailing policy context, and my observations at the site visit. I therefore disagree with an interested party that they set any precedent for the appeal proposal.

The flank walls of several rear facing dormers can be seen from [address] through gaps between buildings. However, those flank walls are not comparable to the appearance of the appeal scheme. Rear dormers are largely hidden in street level views.

Taking all the above into account, I conclude that the proposed development would be significantly harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy CS17 of the [name] 2011, and Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan April 2015, insofar as development should achieve high quality design that preserves or enhances the character and appearance of an area, including locally distinctive townscapes, having particular regard to the character of the host building, and the appearance, scale and mass of the development.

For those same reasons, the development would not be sympathetic to local character including the surrounding built environment and would not be well-designed, contrary to Paragraphs 135 and 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework

Even if I were to agree with the main parties that the proposed development would not be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby properties, an absence of such harm would be a requirement of any well-designed scheme. As such, it would be a neutral factor that would not weigh in favour or against the appeal.

The appeal scheme would harm the character and appearance of the host building and area, which brings it into conflict with Policies DM2 and CS17, and the development plan as a whole. There are no other material considerations that outweigh this finding. I therefore conclude that the appeal proposal is unacceptable, and the appeal is dismissed.