Appeal 3294340

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development is taken from the decision notice. In my view this more clearly and concisely describes the development and I have used it for my decision.

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

[address] is bound by vegetation with detached properties set back from the road. No.[address] of four properties served by a shared access drive, an arrangement replicated along the linear stretch of properties to the northern side of the road. The properties differ in design but generally have space around them and the area has a verdant appearance to [address].

The proposed side extension would extend up to the shared boundary with No.152. It would follow the design and form of the existing house with the ridgeline set down and the front elevation set back, however this is limited and visually two storey bulk would extend across the full width of the plot. In my opinion, this would not only create an overly elongated property, but would also erode the gap with No.152 resulting in a terracing effect.

The siting of the extension is directly contrary to the guidance in the Woking Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which indicates that “it is important to retain a minimum 1m gap between all two storey extensions and a side boundary.” Whilst direct views of properties from [address] are restricted by vegetation, the detached form and visual separation is apparent and part of the established pattern of development along [address].

The proposed relocation of the front door and new central porch would create symmetry to the host property and add design interest, nonetheless, this would not offset the adverse impact of the side extension. The loss of spaciousness which would arise from the resultant form of development would be to the detriment of the appearance and setting of the host property and out of keeping with the character of the area.

Thus, I find that the appeal proposal would fail to accord with [name] Strategy1 policy CS21 and the design SPD which, amongst other things, require development to respect and make a positive contribution to the character of the area, and achieve satisfactory relationships with adjoining properties. It would also be contrary to policies BE1 and BE3 of the Pyrford Neighbourhood Plan which seek that development takes account of the specific context of the site and wider character of the street scene and respects the separation between buildings.

The Council has confirmed that the planning application was determined based on the plans originally submitted. Whilst there is some reference to revised plans these appear to have been provided to the Council on an informal basis and are not before me.

The reason for refusal only relates to the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area and is the main issue on which I have considered the appeal. Other matters are addressed in the officer’s report, and I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s conclusion that the development would not result in any significant adverse impacts on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.152.

For the reasons set out and having regard to all other matters raised the appeal is dismissed.