Appeal 3290805

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey side and rear wrap-around extension, and rear raised decking area at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 21/P/01824, dated 18 August 2021, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule to this decision.

In the interests of accuracy, I have used the Council’s description of the proposed development seen in its decision notice rather than the description used in the application form.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings.

The host property is a detached brick-built, tile roofed dwelling set on a hill within a row of other detached dwellings of varied designs. The house is set well back in its plot, and has a lengthy rear garden. It has a concrete panelled garage to the rear, which is to be demolished to make way for the proposal.

The scheme represents a wholesale revamp of the dwelling’s ground floor accommodation. The wrap around element would incorporate a new side entrance, and the proposed kitchen, dining and sitting rooms would be comprised within a sizeable open plan space. Much of the proposed ground floor accommodation would be housed within a new flat roofed extension, whose rear elevation would be almost entirely glazed. The extension would extend the full width of the original dwelling, and slightly beyond.

The Council considers the proposed extension to be disproportionately large and poorly designed with particular reference to its shape, bulk, roof type and proposed use of extensive glazing, which are said not to be reflective of the host property’s intrinsic design qualities.

I share the Council’s view that the extension’s appearance would not match that of the host property; but it doesn’t appear to me that it was meant to. Rather it is an extension of a distinctly contemporary style, which contrasts sharply with that of the host property. I do not find this design approach objectionable, particularly since the host property is not of particular architectural merit, being what I would describe as distinctly suburban in appearance. The extension is not in my view excessively large, and would enable the existing and newly created space within the house to be used effectively for modern family living.

Moreover, the proposed rear extension, being very well screened from general view, would have no impact on the public realm, or on the wider surroundings. The modestly sized side extension could just be seen from the highway, but being set back, its impact would be minimal and acceptable.

I share the Council’s view that the proposed decking should not cause offence, and neither it nor the proposed extension would impact harmfully on neighbouring living conditions. I note that none of the closest residents objected on being consulted.

I conclude that the extension would sit acceptably in its visual context without harming the character and appearance of the host property or its surroundings. Accordingly, no conflict arises with those provisions of saved policies G5 & H8 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003, or Policy D1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2019 directed to ensuring that new development should achieve high quality design that responds to distinctive local character.

It is necessary, in the interests of certainty that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

All other matters referred to in the representations have been taken into consideration, including the Council’s references to the Guildford Supplementary Planning Document Residential Alterations and Extensions 2018, and the National Planning Policy Framework, but no other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations that led me to my conclusions.