Appeal 3285520

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey side extension at [site address] , Camberley, Surrey, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/0749/FFU, dated 30 June 2021, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

No construction work above first floor plate level of the extension hereby approved shall commence before details of the dressing room/ensuite bathroom window/windows have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, drawings: AD4546 Sheet 1 Existing plans, elevations and site plan and AD4546 Sheet 2 Proposed plans, elevations and site plan [name] 18/6/2021.

I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property, [site address] is a two-storey detached house. It is one of an estate of similarly designed houses. While generally the houses have retained the essential essence of their original design many have been extended and altered over time.

Number 2 is located on a large, unique, and prominent corner plot at the entrance of Glynswood from the [address].

The appellant proposes a two-storey side addition facing the estate road and extending the house towards the [address]. The proposed extension would have a pitched roof that would maintain the ridge height and eaves line of the host property. The external finishes and fenestration would reflect those of the original dwelling. In my judgement therefore for these reasons I consider the proposed addition would appear as a well-mannered addition, that had been designed in the context and character of this post war property.

I appreciate that in terms of its length and height the proposed addition may not be considered subservient to the host property. However, given the shallow pitch of the existing main roof I am not persuaded that a lower roof here or a lowered eaves line would necessarily be an appropriate design solution. In addition, the first floor addition would be set back from the main façade behind a mono pitch roof at first floor level. This feature would serve to visually reduce the perceived mass and form of the extension as designed, while setting the first floor back from the street facade.

The proposed addition would extend the house closer to the [address] and would to some limited extend reduce the depth of the side garden. Nevertheless, I do not consider that due to the overall size and openness of this corner plot it would be significantly diminished by the proposed extension. Further, I do not believe the addition would appreciably denude views towards the established landscaping to the rear.

From my observations on site the line of the buildings facing [address] is already irregular and not, in my opinion, a significant feature here. Accordingly, the proposed addition would not breach an established or significant building line. Furthermore, I do consider that, particularly as this is a corner plot, where deviation form a building line can add visual interest to a development, the proposed addition would be harmful to any established or perceived building line.

I conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed addition would not cause harm to either the architectural integrity of the host property or the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore accord with Policy DNM9 of the [name] borough Council Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2011–2028 ([name] 2012), [name] PC1, PC2, PC4 and WUA3 of the Surrey Heath Development Framework 2006- 2028 Western Urban Area Character-Supplementary Planning Document ([name] 2012), Principles 7.1 and 10.3 of the Surrey Heat Residential Design Guide-Supplementary Planning Document ([name] 201) and the National Planning Policy Framework as they relate to, amongst other things, the quality of development and .the need to respect and enhance local character.

The conditions follow from those suggested by the Council. To ensure a high quality development, I shall include a condition about the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building.

As identified by the Council the design of the first floor window serving the dressing room and ensuite bathroom is shown on plan as two windows with a joining piece to receive the partition wall and on elevation as just one window. As the design of the fenestration is critical to the quality of the development in the context of this post war estate, I will require details of the window to be approved by the local planning authority.

In the interests of certainty, I shall impose a condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.