Appeal 3308242

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a first floor/part two storey side extension, part single/part two storey rear extension, two additional rooflights and changes to fenestration at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, 22/P/00496, dated 17 March 2022, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: TS2021/18 dwg No.00, TS2021/18 dwg No.01, TS2021/18 dwg No.02, TS2021/18 dwg No.03, TS2021/18 dwg No.04, TS2021/18 dwg No.05 and TS2021/18 dwg No.06

The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the extensions hereby approved shall match those of the existing dwelling.

The first floor windows in the north-eastern and south-western elevations of the development hereby approved shall be glazed with obscure glass and permanently fixed shut, unless the parts of the window/s which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed and shall thereafter be permanently retained as such.

The description of development is taken from the decision notice and appeal form. 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 proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings.

[address] is part of a residential area comprising properties with a variety of architectural styles. They have a range of features and roof forms. No. [site address] is a detached two-storey property with a catslide roof to the western elevation. The appeal proposal would replace the catslide with a two-storey side extension, together with two-storey and single storey extensions to the rear. Planning permission has previously been granted for most of the rear extensions (Council reference 20/P/01852) albeit under this proposal the two-storey element would extend further across and link into the proposed side extension.

Whilst the proposed side extension extends off the existing ridgeline and adds bulk at roof level, the increase to the width of the property is limited. Through the alterations the appearance of the dwelling would be significantly changed, and the existing dormer windows would not be central. However, there is no defining form in the area, and the windows and door to the existing front elevation do not have a consistent vertical alignment. In my view, the extension would fully integrate with the host property, and overall, the resultant form would be well portioned with a balanced hipped roof. As such, I do not find that the side extension would be visually prominent, and the scale of the property would be reflective of others in the road.

I acknowledge that the design of the side extension does not reflect the subservient approach advocated in the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations: Guildford Borough Council Supplementary Planning Document 2018 (SPD). However, the SPD sets out general rules and does not preclude other options. A gap of 1.5m is to be retained to the boundary and the development would not result in a terracing effect which is a key aspect the SPD seeks to avoid in relation to side extensions. Overall, in my opinion, the proposal would accord with the design principles of the SPD to ensure that the alterations are appropriate to the character and appearance of the existing property and street scene.

In conclusion, I find that the side extension would be an appropriate alteration to the host property and would not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. As such I find that it would accord with the requirements of policy D1 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2015 – 2034 and the general provisions of the SPD, which together promote high quality design and for development to be compatible with the surrounding area.

I have imposed conditions requiring commencement of development within three years, and to be in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. A condition requiring the use of matching materials is necessary in the interests of a good quality appearance to the development. I also agree with the Council that a condition restricting the glazing and opening of the proposed first floor side windows is required to protect the privacy of neighbouring residents.

For the reasons given above and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.