Appeal 6004066

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

I have taken the description of development from the Council’s Decision Notice as this is more precise.

The Council considers the proposed single storey side extension to be acceptable. I have no reason to disagree with this conclusion. This decision has therefore focused on the proposed changes to the first floor and roof of the dwelling.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the wider area.

[site address] is a private residential road containing relatively large detached dwellings. Whilst the architectural styles vary, the majority of dwellings have been built close together, with broadly similar plot sizes. The dwellings are all set back from the road with front gardens or driveway parking. The appeal property, a two storey detached dwelling, is well proportioned and fairly typical of the properties on the road. It makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed first floor rear/ side extension would enlarge the property over the existing single storey flat roof. The existing roof would be altered and extended to create a barn hipped roof, with two pitched roof rear facing dormer windows. Towards the front of the property, a crown roof would be created, and it is proposed to enlarge the centrally located first floor window changing the roof from a hip roof to a gable. It is proposed to increase the overall height of the roof by circa 0.44m.

Section 6.6.3 of the Elmbridge Design Code Supplementary Planning Document (2024) (the [name]) is clear that the roof of an extension should be similar to that of the existing house, in scale, design and the angle of the pitch. It states that properties with a pitched roof should not have flat-roofed extensions.

The proposed roof alterations would significantly alter the roof form and appearance of the dwelling. The overall height of the property would remain slightly lower than the adjacent properties. However, the increased height as well as the width being extended to form the crown roofs, would result in a significant increase in scale at roof level which would dominate the property.

Despite the setback from the front of the property, the changes to the roof would be visible in the street scene. It is acknowledged views are limited of the rear and flank elevations, but the proposed alterations would create a top-heavy feature that would not be indiscernible. This would render the roof a more dominant feature than is presently the case, with a disproportionate addition that could not be considered subordinate. The proposed alterations would add bulk and mass to the property at roof level when viewed from [site address] . The roof extensions would disrupt the proportions of the dwelling and appear out of keeping, even in the context of a varied street scene.

It has been highlighted by the appellant that the proposed crown roofs and the barn hipped design, along with the rear dormers would reflect the design and style of other roofs in the surrounding area. The appellant has also provided me with details of two properties on [site address] that have received planning permission. [address] and [address] demonstrate the use of crowns roofs and tight building lines on the side boundaries within the area. I agree with the appellant that the style of roofs proposed is not in themselves out of place given the variety of dwelling styles on [site address] . However, it is both the particular form and conglomerate mass of the proposed roof extensions that would be out of keeping relative to the existing property. Whilst it is noted that materials have been chosen to complement the style of the dwelling, this would not address the more fundamental issues of scale and design.

I am satisfied that the change from a hip roof to gable at the front of the dwelling would not significantly change the overall appearance of the property. The front building line remains unchanged and the scale of the proposed window, whilst larger than the existing window, would not unbalance the appearance. The proposed gable style roof would be in keeping with properties either side of the dwelling.

Nonetheless, I have found that the first-floor rear and side extension, the main roof alterations and rear dormers would be out of keeping with the scale and design of the appeal property and as a result would unacceptably affect the character and appearance of the dwelling and surrounding area. This is contrary to Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan (April 2015) and Policy CS10 and CS17 of the [name] (July 2011) and the National Planning Policy Framework. These seek, amongst other things, to ensure development is of high-quality design and preserves or enhances the character of the local area. The proposal is also contrary to the Council’s Design Code, as set out above.

It is understood that the proposal aims to enlarge the appeal dwelling for the appellant’s family. It is also noted that there are areas in which the proposals would be acceptable, such as the effect on the amenity of neighbouring properties. However, these are neutral factors in the planning balance.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.