Appeal 6009356

The appeal is dismissed.

The planning application sought retrospective planning permission for the provision of a porch to the principal elevation of the appeal dwelling which was complete at the time of my site visit. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is whether the appeal proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Walton Riverside Conservation Area.

The appeal site is situated within a well maintained terrace of 4no two storey houses within the Walton Riverside Conservation Area which is contiguous with the [address]/[address] Conservation Area to the south east, along [address] on its north eastern side.

The appeal site forms part of what is also known as [name] built with robust, rectangular front bay windows at ground floor level with lean-pitch to roofs. Until the porch was constructed, an element of principal elevation would have been visible to either side of them, as for the other houses within the terrace. Nos 62 and 64 were built wider than the end units, with their respective front doors adjacent to their [name].

The Conservation Area’s Character Appraisal and Management Plan (CAMP) highlights that the houses which turn the corner from [address] into [address] form an attractive group of modest residential dwellings, possibly originating as river workers cottages, juxtaposed with, but complemented by [address] opposite which is [name] listed.

The CAMP highlights that all of these houses form an important residential group of some considerable quality and townscape importance and define the junction of [address] and [address]; and set this character apart from others with its predominantly quiet modest domestic scale and use. I consider this to be an accurate description of the significance of the Conservation Area.

It is understood that the appellant believed that the porch was Permitted Development and therefore I have no doubt that it was constructed in good faith. I also acknowledge that it was erected at a cost and that to demolish it would incur further expense, however I am afraid that that is not a determining factor in the planning appeal process.

Until the porch, the subject of this appeal was constructed, the [name] terrace essentially retained its original form with a robust character and simple symmetry in a manner which was restful upon the eye. The mono-pitch roof over the bay window of no 62 has subsequently been extended over to the [name], from the front of which has been constructed a rather box-shaped element with a flat roof which protrudes significantly beyond the depth of the bay and runs wholly in opposition to the vernacular architecture of the host dwelling.

I find that the porch extension appears as an alien and incongruous feature within the street scene and fails to appear proportionate to the principal elevation of the appeal dwelling and the terrace of which it forms part. Consequently, I consider that it fails to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area notwithstanding that the proposal would not disturb the existing front boundary treatment and the fact that the front elevation is just over 2m away from it. A change in the colour of the structure would not mitigate its negative impacts. I acknowledge that the character of Conservation Areas can and indeed do evolve over time, however that does not mean that any alterations to buildings located therein are deemed acceptable.

I fully understand the appellant’s personal circumstances and the reasoning behind why they had the porch built in the first instance, with which I sympathise. [name] am not convinced that the provision of the porch as constructed was the only means of providing a transition zone from the internal living environment to the street. Whilst it is not for me to advance alternative solutions, it has not been demonstrated for example whether an internal lobby area within the lounge had been explored whilst the dayroom extension to the rear was being constructed.

I certainly do not wish to belittle the appellant’s health issues and the struggles they face on a day-to-day basis, however, respectfully, the occupation of dwellings is ultimately transitory whereas the appellant’s accommodation circumstances could change in the future, but the building would remain as extended on the site and continue to harm the character and appearance of the area in posterity.

Having regard to the [name] report, and the statement of the appellant’s long-term friend in the same profession, I accept that dismissing the appeal will interfere with the appellant and her family’s rights to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, and to a private and family life and home, pursuant to Article 1 of the [name] and Article 8 as set out under the Human Rights Act 1988. However, those are qualified rights and the interference with them in this instance would accord with the Law and in pursuance of a well-established and legitimate aim to protect the public realm from development which is deemed to be unacceptable, having regard to the Development Plan.

Consequently, as neither the appellant or her family will be made homeless, it is proportionate and necessary to refuse to grant planning permission with there being no violation of their human rights. Furthermore, the child’s best interests and their right to privacy and safety are of utmost importance and must be weighed within the planning balance.

Therefore, as neither the appellant or her family will be made homeless, it is proportionate and necessary to refuse to grant planning permission with there being no violation of their human rights. The protection of the public interest cannot be achieved by means that are less interfering with their rights.

In coming to my decision I have also had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duties (PSED) set out under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010; the risk caused by the porch upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area outweigh its benefits in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with the protected characteristics of age and/or disability, advancing a quality of opportunity for those persons and fostering good relations between them and others. I conclude that it is proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal.

I also find that less than substantial harm would be caused to the designated heritage asset and no public benefits have been advanced that outweigh this harm.

I consider that by reason of its design and scale that the porch constitutes a visually obtrusive and unsympathetic form of development to the surrounding pattern of built form within the locality and conflicts with not only the National Planning Policy Framework, but with Policy CS17 of the [name] 2011 and Policies DM2 and DM12 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan 2015 which together require proposals to integrate sensitively with the locally distinctive townscape and heritage assets, ensuring that proposal pay particular regard to the attributes of appearance, scale, mass, height, prevailing pattern of built development and character of the host building in the case of extensions, whilst ensuring that the development within Conservation Areas should preserve or enhance the character or appearance of an area, taking account of the streetscape, plot and frontage sizes.

Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed.