Appeal 6005117

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building, the street scene, and the St Helier Estate Area of Special Local Character.

The appeal property forms one end of a short 2-storey terrace comprising 3 houses. The terrace is mirrored by a terrace opposite and together with the neighbouring pair of semi-detached houses these buildings form a symmetrical arrangement around 3 sides of a small green. The buildings are largely identical in respect of their materials, scale and fenestration and feature hipped roofs and prominent chimneys.

[address] and the neighbouring residential streets form part of the St. Helier Estate Area of Special Local Character (ASLC), as designated in the Sutton Local Plan (2018) (SLP). This area is notable for its symmetrically planned layout, green spaces, and the uniformity of the terraces which, with very few exceptions, have hipped roofs. The formal layout and uniform appearance of [address] and its surroundings are matters to which I attach significant weight.

The proposal would comprise a hip to gable roof extension combined with a full-width dormer within the expanded rear roof slope. To accommodate the latter, ridge level would be raised. A pair of rooflights would be installed in the expanded front roof slope.

The side elevation of the appeal property is exposed and prominent in views from the street towards the group of houses and therefore the proposal would be a highly conspicuous feature in the street scene. Due to its siting and size the expanded roof form would severely disrupt the symmetry of the terrace of which the appeal property forms part and that of the group of buildings facing the green. In addition, it would be at odds with the prevailing character and appearance of the wider area.

Due to its sitting, height, size, and design I therefore conclude that the proposal would be an and overly prominent and wholly incongruous addition that would have an unacceptable effect on the host building, the street scene and the ASLC. As such it fails to comply with [name] 28 and 30, which seek to ensure extensions are of an appropriate scale, massing and height and the borough's Areas of Special Local Character are protected. There is also conflict with the Council's Supplementary Planning Document 4 'Design of [name] which advises that overly large, dominant, and top-heavy roof additions will be resisted and deemed unacceptable.

The appellant states that it would be possible to build a similar, albeit lower, roof extension without planning permission by virtue of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) and has provided drawings that purport to show this. I recognise that a fall-back position may exist. However, the appeal proposal must be considered on its planning merits against the development plan.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.