Appeal 6005806

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance on the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

There are a range of different dwelling types and architectural styles within Portmore Park Road. There are some examples of properties with roof alterations, and these appear subservient and sympathetic to the individual host property. The appeal site is between two larger two detached properties. These properties are therefore taller than [address]. However, the pitched roofs of these properties reduce the bulk and mass of built form at the upper levels.

[address] is a bungalow with a rear element which has a pitched roof. When viewed from the street the roof is hipped at the front and sides with a flat crown section at the top reducing the mass on the upper levels. [address] is positioned on the curve of Portmore Park Road. This means the bungalow is sited in a prominent position in the street scene but due to the reduced massing of the existing roof, the bungalow blends well into the street scene. The bungalow has a simple and clean design and makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development is to alter and enlarge the roof to a hipped roof style and introduce two dormer windows to the front and 1 dormer window on each side of the hipped roof.

The proposed development would increase the ridge height of the roof leading to an increase in massing. The front dormers would further add massing to the upper level of the host property. These elements would give the roof a bulky appearance. The proposed dormer window on the side of the hipped roof would be excessive in massing and scale. The positions of these dormers would create an unbalanced incongruous roof shape which would not be subservient or sympathetic to the host property. I acknowledge that proposed development would result in a dwelling which retains the same footprint and is lower in height then its neighbours, but this does not mitigate the excessive massing of the proposed development and it’s inappropriate roof shape.

Given the prominent position of the dwelling, the unsympathetic additions would be more visible within the street scene and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the wider area. There have been roof alterations to dwellings Portmore Park Road, but these have been sympathetic and subservient to the host dwelling. I do not consider the proposed development to be compatible with the wider character of the area because it significantly increases the massing at the upper level of the property and this is not generally reflective of the wider character and appearance of Portmore Park Road.

In conclusion, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance on the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Consequently, it would not comply with the provisions set out in policies CS4 and CS17 of the [name] 2011 and policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015. In summary, these policies seek to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area through high quality design.

I have found there would be harm to the character and appearance of both the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It therefore follows that the proposed development is not well designed and should be dismissed in line with the provisions set out in paragraph 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reference has been made to the effect that there would be a possible interference with the human rights of the appellant and their family under Article 1 of the [name] and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 if the appeal were dismissed. Article 1 of the [name] deals with protection of property and Article 8 deals with the right for respect for family life and the home. Dismissing the appeal will mean that the appellant will retain their existing home, possessions and family life. However, the appellants wish to accommodate a growing family and potential future care needs within an established family home. Therefore, dismissing the appeal would interfere albeit in a limited way with the appellant’s and their family’s rights to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, and family life and home, under Article 1 of the [name] and Article 8 as set out under the Human Rights Act

However, those are qualified rights; interference with them in this instance would accord with the law and be in pursuance of preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area through high quality design which is in the wider public interest. It is proportionate in the circumstances to dismiss the appeal.

My attention has been drawn to applications involving roof alterations at [address], [address], [address]. These properties are in a different street with its own set of characteristics. Therefore, these applications are not directly comparable to the appeal site. My attention has also been drawn to 2 and [address] which are of a different architectural style and position to the appeal site. The scale of the roof alterations appears to be more subservient that the proposed development. In any event, I do not have the full details of these cases before me, including the planning history or balance. Thus, I have determined the appeal on its own individual circumstances, based on the evidence.

I acknowledge that a pre-application was undertaken and the proposed development would be efficient use of land by extending a dwelling to accommodate a growing family and future care needs. It would likely have an acceptable effect living conditions on existing occupiers and neighbours. However, any benefits to be drawn in these respects would be insufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified.

For the above reason, having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.