Application No: 2015/3706 Application Type: FULL

Case Officer: Ross Cahalane Ward:

Hinchley Wood

Expiry Date: 04/12/2015 Location: 42 Heathside Esher Surrey KT10 9TF

Proposal: Two storey front infill extension, two storey rear extension, hip to gable roof extension incorporating rear dormers and front rooflights and associated alterations

Applicant: Mrs Jenny De Haan

Agent:

Mr Justin Cooper Mohsin Cooper Ltd 16 West Barnes Lane Raynes Park London SW20 0BU

Decision Level: If Permit – Sub Committee If Refuse – Sub Committee

Recommendation: Permit

Representations: 6 letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:

• Scale, size and design out of keeping with streetscene • Two storey rear extension will dominate landscape for surrounding houses • Plans would result in featureless house devoid of character • Flat roof will form an overbearing building • Overdevelopment of the site • Not just extension but a totally inappropriate, massive and overbearing new house • Impact will be far worse than the full gable extensions of No. 3 and 21 Heathside as it

would have flat topped three storey side walls • No precedent anywhere else in Heathside • House could be extended in a far more sensitive way to achieve much of the

additional space required • Overshadowing • Loss of trees regrettable • Loss of garden area does not seem to be addressed within the Flood Risk

Assessment • Flood plans provided by Environment Agency are out of date • Virtually a repeat of the rejected application 2014/5007

This application has been promoted to the area Sub Committee by Cllr Haig-Brown if the officer

recommendation is to permit.

R e p o r t Description

1. The site comprises of a detached two storey dwellinghouse located on the western side of Heathside. The site is located within the Settlement Area of Esher.

Constraints

2. The relevant planning constraints are: • Flood Zone 2 • Flood Zone 3b

Policy

3. In addition to the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance, the following local policies and guidance are relevant to the determination of this application:

Core Strategy 2011

CS09- Esher CS17- Local Character, Density and Design CS26- Flooding

Development Management Plan 2015 DM1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development DM2 – Design and Amenity

Design & Character SPD 2012 Home Extensions Companion Guide

4. Relevant Planning History

Reference Description Decision 2014/5007 Two storey front infill extension, two storey rear extension, hip to

gable roof extension incorporating rear dormer window and front rooflights and alterations to fenestration

Refused

Reasons for refusal of 2014/5007:

1. The resultant roof profile incorporating rear flat roof dormer by reason of its scale, size and bulk would appear over dominant and incongruous form of development. This would be to the detriment of the appearance of the host dwelling and the visual amenities of the locality. This contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, policy CS9 and CS17 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy (2011), saved policies ENV2, HSG16 and HSG20 of the Replacement Elmbridge Borough Local Plan (2000) and the Home Extensions Companion Guide to the Design and Character SPD (2012).

2. The flood risk assessment submitted with the application was inadequately detailed and does not consider the impact of the proposal beyond the application site. This is contrary to The National Planning Policy Framework, Planning Practice Guidance and policy CS26 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy (2011).

Proposal

5. Planning permission is sought for a two storey front infill extension, two storey rear extension, hip to gable roof extension incorporating rear dormers and front rooflights and associated alterations.

Consultations

6. Environmental Agency: Refer to the Flood Risk Standing Advice (FRSA) Positive and Proactive Engagement

7. In assessing this application, officers have worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner consistent with the requirements of 186-187 of the NPPF by making available pre-application advice to seek to resolve problems before the application was submitted and to foster the delivery of sustainable development.

8. Pre-application advice was sought prior to the submission of the current application (reference PreApp1181518), wherein the applicant was advised that smaller dormer windows with a more sympathetic design may help overcome Reason 1 of the 2014/5007. It was also advised that the flood risk assessment should demonstrate the impact upon the surrounding properties.

Planning Considerations

9. The main planning considerations in the determination of this application are: • The design of the proposal and its impact on the host dwelling, the character of the area

and the street scene • The impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties • The impact on garden space • Access and parking • Flood risk

The design of the proposal and its impact on the host dwelling, the character of the area and the street scene

10. Heathside is an area characterised by detached two storey dwellings mainly consisting

primarily of pitched roofs and hipped flanks. However, some other dwellings in the vicinity have front-facing gables. No. 21 Heathside to the northeast benefits from gable flank ends and a white render finish. Whilst brickwork is the predominant material along the streetscene, there are a variety of brick types and fenestration designs including some tile hanging and rendering. The existing application site dwelling has a staggered front elevation which includes a two storey front gable feature.

11. The proposed extensions would result in one continuous two storey front elevation line that would be set back from the existing front elevation lines, and would create a gable end roof profile with a flat roof which would be visible within the street scene and when viewed from the neighbouring gardens. Given the mix of roof profiles and fenestration designs within the area, it is considered that the proposed front elevation and hip-to-gable and rear dormer extensions would not result in adverse harm to the character of the host dwelling and surrounding streetscene.

12. It is accepted that the proposed flat roof form would be a departure from the pitched roof form of the host dwelling and surrounding properties. However, given the proposed front elevation roof pitch and set-back distance of the flat roof form from the existing host dwelling and neighbouring front elevation lines, in this instance it is considered that the proposed flat roof element would not give rise to an overbearing or incongruous addition to the host dwelling and surrounding streetscene.

13. The proposed rear dormers have been reduced in bulk, height and width from the rear dormer

of the refused 2014/5007 scheme, and now incorporate pitched roof forms. It is considered that the proposed dormers are of a size that would not dominate the resultant rear roof profile or appear over-sized and intrusive.

14. The proposed render colours are white or cream and the proposed roof materials are artificial tiles or fibre-cement slate tiles. As there is a mix of material and fenestration styles within the area, there is no objection to the proposed use of painted render throughout. Furthermore, the above proposed external materials can be controlled through a planning condition requiring details to be submitted and approved prior to commencement.

15. It is acknowledged that the proposal involves significant alteration to the form of the original

dwelling. However, the site is not within a conservation area and there are no planning policies at local or national level that restrict the principle of such a development. Each application is assessed on its own merits, and as outlined above it is considered that the current proposal would meet national and local planning policies relating to design and character.

The impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties

16. The proposed extensions would not breach the appropriate ground and first floor sightlines

taken from the edge of the nearest habitable rooms of No. 40 and No.46 Heathside. Therefore, the proposal would not give rise to adverse loss of sunlight and daylight to the above neighbours. Furthermore, the proposed extensions would be of a depth and siting as not to appear visually intrusive or overbearing to these neighbours.

17. With regards to overlooking, the flank windows at first floor and above would serve non

habitable rooms (bathrooms and storage room). These windows are considered acceptable subject to a condition requiring them to be obscurely glazed and to have high level openings. The view from the rear facing windows within the dormers would be comparable to that which exists at first floor. As such, it is considered that the proposal would not give rise to a materially greater degree of overlooking towards No. 40 and No. 46 than the existing arrangement.

18. The proposal would be sited at sufficient distance from other neighbouring boundaries and habitable windows to avoid material harm to amenity.

The impact on garden space

19. Sufficient and private amenity space would remain for the enjoyment of the occupants of

No.42. Access and parking

20. The proposal would involve the loss of an integral garage. However, the proposed ground floor plan indicates that sufficient off-street parking would be provided within the front of the site commensurate with the proposed dwelling size. Flood Risk

21. The proposed extension is located within Flood Zone 3a. The flood risk assessment advises that the proposed impermeable surface area will be less than the existing and sufficient to offset the proposed increase in floor area, and that the use of a soakaway and water butts is SuDS (Sustainable Drainage Guidance) compliant. It is considered that the flood risk assessment is adequately detailed and demonstrates compliance with the ‘Exception Test’ (as set out in paragraph 102 of the Framework), which is a method to demonstrate and help ensure that flood risk to people and property will be managed satisfactorily. This also accords with the flood risk compatibility table in the NPPG which concludes that development is appropriate for ‘more vulnerable’ proposals, including householder extensions in Flood Zone 3a. As such, it is not considered that the proposal would have a material increase in flood risk.

Matters raised in Representations

22. The proposal would involve the loss of two trees near to each rear garden side boundary. However, they are considered to be of insufficient public amenity value to warrant statutory protection. The other matters raised have been addressed above. Conclusion

23. On the basis of the above, and in light of any other material considerations, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, the recommendation is to grant permission

Case Officer Checklist Neighbour Notifications RC 12.11.2015 Consultations RC 12.11.2015 Drawings RC 12.11.2015 Site Visit Notes RC 12.11.2015

Recommendation: Grant Permission

Conditions/Reasons 1 TIME LIMIT (FULL APPLICATION)

The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with Section 51 of Part 4 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2 LIST OF APPROVED PLANS

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following list of approved plans:

Proposed plans, elevations and section (drawing number 164 / A001 REV: D) - received on 09 October 2015.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in a satisfactory manner.

3 MATERIALS SAMPLES

NO DEVELOPMENT SHALL TAKE PLACE UNTIL SAMPLES OF THE MATERIALS TO BE USED ON THE EXTERNAL FACES AND ROOF OF THE BUILDING HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE BOROUGH COUNCIL. DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED DETAILS.

Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory external appearance is achieved of the development in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015. It is considered necessary for this to be a pre-commencement condition because the use of satisfactory external materials goes to the heart of the planning permission.

4 OBSCURE GLAZING

The first and second floor windows on both side elevations of the development hereby permitted shall be glazed with obscure glass and fitted with non-opening principal lights, and subsequently maintained in this form. Such glass shall be sufficiently obscure to prevent loss of privacy. The affixing of an obscure film will not be sufficient.

Reason: To preserve the reasonable privacy of neighbouring residents in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan 2015.