Appeal 3275137

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for alterations to the existing house to provide a side, ground floor extension, with an enlarged bathroom and an enlarged bedroom at first floor level at [site address] , Farncombe, in accordance with the terms of the application, WA/2020/2023, dated, 7 December 2020 subject to the following conditions: - 1 The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of the decision. 2 The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out other than in complete accordance with the approved plan 17.531 drawing no.12.

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

[address] is a pleasant residential street. It has a range of property styles and ages which contribute to its character. No.6 is a detached property with a linked garage to the side. It has accommodation in the roof and in the side (west) elevation there are windows to all three floors.

The proposed extensions would be modest in size. The ground floor extension would effectively infill the area to the rear of the garage and replace an existing outbuilding. The Council has raised no concerns with this element, and I have no reason to disagree.

At first floor the extension has a somewhat unusual form comprising two separate projections off the side elevation. These would allow the existing bedroom and bathroom to be extended, whilst maintaining the landing window in the existing elevation. The projections would have a very shallow mono pitched roof adjoining the existing eaves line. It would appear, as suggested by the Council, that the scheme has been designed to provide a functional response to the existing layout. However, in my view, this does not mean that it is contrived.

The Council’s Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2010 (SPD) explains that two storey side extensions should normally appear smaller in mass and scale or be ‘subordinate’ to the main building. The guidance explains that this is so that an extension can be clearly identified as an addition.

A more conventional side extension, as illustrated in the SPD, is unlikely to be feasible and/or would add considerable bulk to the property. As such, whilst different, I find that the extension responds to the existing form of the property and the SPD does not rule out more contemporary approaches to development. The proposed material of cedar boarding would not match, nevertheless, the extension is of a scale and form which is subservient and at first floor level separation to the side boundary would be maintained. To that end the extension would clearly be identifiable as such, and therefore the evolution of the building could be seen.

The side elevation of the property is visible in the street scene over the garages of Nos 4 and 6, however only at a certain point along the road would the detached form of the extensions be discernible. In my opinion, in general views along the road the extension would not appear dominant or visually intrusive. As such, I do not find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. I therefore conclude that the proposal would be consistent with the aims of the SPD and saved policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 which require that development is of a high-quality design and integrates well with the site and surroundings. These matters are also echoed in Waverley Borough Local Plan (part 1) 2018 policy TD1, and Godalming and Farncombe Neighbourhood Plan policy GOD5.

For clarity and certainty, I have attached the standard timeframe condition, and a condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans.

For the reasons set out above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and planning permission granted.