Appeal 3317846

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for first floor extension to bungalow at [name], 25 [name], Chertsey, Surrey [postcode] in accordance with the application ref: RU.22/1674 dated 19 December 2022, and the plans submitted within it including drawing Nos P101; P102; P103: P104; P105; P106.

There is no dispute between the parties that the proposed development would meet the criteria set out under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO), provided it would meet the conditions set out at paragraph AA.2 of the GPDO. From the evidence before me, there is nothing to lead me to a different conclusion.

The main issue in this appeal is therefore whether prior approval should be granted when the proposed development is assessed against condition AA.2 (3) (a) (ii) of the GPDO in relation to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.

[name] comprises a fairly large group of detached two-storey houses and single-storey bungalows, which predominantly front the [name]. As a result, the properties and the highway follow the curve of the river. The houses and bungalows are diverse in their appearance, varying in their heights, forms, and designs.

On the opposite side of the highway to the river there is a large area of green open space, bounded by trees and close by is [name] which comprises many trees. Together with the openness of the river, which is fairly wide at this point, this gives [name] an open and verdant character.

I saw on site that the primary and more open view of the properties along [name] is from the opposite side of the river. Views of the houses and bungalows from the adjacent highway tend to be partly blocked by boundary treatments, garages, and other outbuildings at the rear of the plots. Notwithstanding this, given the width of the river, the properties on the opposite side of it have a limited effect on the visual context of [name]. In terms of the appeal property, it is viewed alongside a group of bungalows to the west, as well as the properties of [name], Meadowsweet and [name] to the east, despite larger gaps between these properties.

The appeal property is a detached bungalow, set within a fairly narrow plot. There is a degree of consistency in the immediate area, resulting from the group of bungalows to the west, which all have a similar single storey, low profile, modest appearance and are built on fairly narrow plots, which fan around a bend in the river.

Nevertheless, although the appeal property shares some of the characteristics of this group of similar bungalows, unlike the others, which have very gentle pitched roofs, the appeal property has a much steeper, hipped roof. This makes it appear taller and gives it quite a different appearance from the rest of the group. Furthermore, [name], Meadowsweet and [name] to the east of the appeal property also have a different appearance to the group of similar bungalows, including different scales and roof profiles.

The proposed development would add a modest height second storey to the appeal property. The additional storey would replicate the roof form, architectural detail and materials of the existing bungalow and would include an appropriate arrangement of fenestration. Thus, it would not appear out of character with the host dwelling.

I appreciate that, given the modest height of the neighbouring property, [name], and the low-profile of the group of similar bungalows, a more significant increase in height, such as that proposed in the previously refused application, Ref: RU.22/1388, would likely result in the appeal property appearing visually dominant. However, in this case, the increase in height would be minor, with the height of the resultant property being modest and shorter than the nearby property, Meadowsweet. Thus, the resultant external appearance of the appeal property would not be at odds with the appearance of the immediate area, nor would it be visually dominant. While the small increase in height would make the appeal property larger, it would not result in any appreciable harm to the open and verdant character of [name]. In coming to this view, I have taken account of the CAB housing judgement1, which supports a wider interpretation of condition AA.2 (3) (a) (ii) of the GPDO, where such effects are material.

The appellant has drawn my attention to some other examples of development on [name]. With the exception of Meadowsweet and [name], these examples are relatively far from the appeal property and there is intervening built form. While they add to the more diverse appearance of the wider area, 1 [name] v The Secretary of State for [name], Housing and Communities [2022] EWHC 208 (Admin) they are not determinative, and I have afforded them limited weight in my

In conclusion, for the reasons above, the resulting appearance of the dwellinghouse would not be visually dominant or out of keeping and would not result in any appreciable harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore accord with the aims of Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek to create high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings, and places by, among other things, ensuring developments are visually attractive and sympathetic to local character. It would also comply with the similar provisions of Policy EE1 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan (2020) and the [name] (2021).

Any planning permission granted for development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO is subject to conditions set out in paragraph AA.2, sub-paragraphs (2) and (3). These specify that the materials used in any exterior work must be of a similar appearance to those used in the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse, the development must not include a window in any wall or roof slope forming a side elevation, the resulting roof pitch must be the same as the existing dwellinghouse, and the development of the dwellinghouse must be used as a dwellinghouse. They also require the developer to provide the local planning authority with a report for the management of construction of the development, complete the development within a period of 3 years starting with the date prior approval is granted and notify the local planning authority of the completion of the development.

The Council has suggested that 4 conditions be imposed on any permission. However, the suggested conditions repeat some of those set out in paragraph AA.2, sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and it is not necessary for me to impose them again.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval should be granted.