Appeal 3294203

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear and double storey side extensions at [site address] , Merstham, Surrey, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/01823/HHOLD, dated 5 July 2022, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

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.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, drawings: 11117/101/P2, 102/P1, 110/P2, 120/P3 and 140/P1.

I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of numbers [address] in terms of its potential to result in an overbearing, dominant and oppressive outlook.

This appeal has been determined on the basis of the drawings submitted to and considered by the Council.

The appeal property, [site address] , is a two-storey semi-detached house, it is situated on a post war residential estate. The adjacent house, [address], is the end property of a terrace of 6 and is located on the corner of [address] and [address]. The dwellings are positioned such that the flank wall of number 4 faces the rear wall of number 2.

The appellants propose a single storey rear and a two-storey side extension facing number 2. The roof of the proposed first floor addition would be a hipped roof to match the main dwelling, but with the ridge line set below that of the main roof. The new extension would be clad at first floor level which would serve to break up the visual mass of the new flank wall. Accordingly, the extension would appear as a well-mannered subservient addition to the main house.

The proposed two-storey side extension would be built hard up to the edge of the boundary to a shared right of way between the appeal site boundary and that of the rear garden of [address]. Accordingly, the rear elevation of number 2 would face the new flank wall of number 4.

Number 2 only has ground floor windows facing the appeal site. Therefore, given the separation distance between the properties, there orientation and the shape of the side extension’s roof I do not consider that there would be any loss of daylight or sunlight to the rooms in number 2 served by the ground floor windows or the rear garden of number 2.

Furthermore, from my observations on site, given the separation distance between the properties, the shared right of way and the form of and proposed cladding to the first floor level of the addition I am not persuaded that it would appear as an overbearing, dominant and oppressive form of development.

I conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed development would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] in terms of resulting in terms of an overbearing, dominant and oppressive outlook. The development would thereby accord with the aims of Policy DES1 of the Reigate and Banstead Development Management Plan ([name] 2019), Policy CS4 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan Core Strategy ([name] 2014) and the Supplementary Planning Guidance- Householder Extensions and Alterations ([name] 2004) as they seek to protect residential living conditions.

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.

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.