Appeal 3319761

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey extension, side garage, front porch, rear solar panels and alterations to the fenestration and finish following demolition of existing garage at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2022/3141, dated 17 October 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 plans: 2218-CTD-PL-GA-1001 Rev 1, 2218-CTD-PL-GA-1002 Rev 1, 2218-CTD-PL-GA-1010 Rev 1, 2218-CTD-PL-GA-1011 Rev 1, 2218-CTD-PL-GA-1012 Rev 1, 2218-CTD-PL-GA-1013 Rev 1, 2218-CTD-PL-GA-1020 Rev 1, 2218-CTD-PL-GA-1021 Rev 1, 2218-CTD-PL-GA-1022 Rev 1, 2218-CTD-PL-GA-1023 Rev 1

I have taken the description of development in the banner above from the Council’s decision notice as it is more comprehensive than that on the application form.

The main issues are; • The effect upon the character and appearance of the site and area; and • The effect upon the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of no.[address], in terms of outlook and levels of light.

The appeal scheme proposes extensive extensions and alterations to the host dwelling, which would give rise to a substantial house with a significantly different appearance to the existing property.

[address] sits within a residential area which is characterised by large, detached dwellings, of varying designs and materials. On my site visit I noted a number of properties which, like the appeal proposal, span almost the full width of the plot and/or include forward projecting two-storey extensions.

I recognise that the proposed two-storey side extension would increase the overall bulk of the host property, particularly as it would not be set down and would project forward of the original property. However, given that this is a sizeable plot, the dwelling would not appear overly dominant within the plot or streetscene. Moreover, the proposed side extension would sit within a similar footprint to a detached garage, which is to be demolished. As such, the overall width of the dwelling within the plot would not significantly increase.

Whilst the proposal would significantly alter the appearance of the existing property, the dwelling has limited architectural merit. The proposed works would respond to the variety of house designs and materials found within the vicinity, including window types and render finish. It would therefore sit comfortably within the context.

Taking all of this into account, the proposed development would not appear overly dominant or out of character in the streetscene. The proposals would not unduly harm the character and appearance of the site or area. It would therefore accord with Policies CS8 and CS17 of the [name] (2011), Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan (2015) (ELDPMP), the Elmbridge Local Plan Design and [name] (2012)(DCSPD) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which together seek to secure high quality and sustainable development which preserves or enhances the character of the area.

The appeal scheme proposes a substantial two-storey side extension, which would come close to the boundary with No [address]. The neighbouring home is set away from the side boundary, separated by a good level of vegetation, as well as a garden area. [name] recognise that the side elevation of No 14 includes a number of windows, a good separation distance would be retained between the two dwellings. Consequently, the proposals would be unlikely to give rise to a sense of overbearing or significantly impact the level of light to the neighbouring house. On this basis, the scheme would be unlikely to unduly harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.

In view of the above, the proposal meets the requirements of Policy DM2 of the ELDPMP, the DCSPD and the Framework. Taken together, these seek to safeguard living conditions.

I impose conditions regarding timescales and the approved plans to provide certainty. The Council’s suggested condition regarding external finishes is not necessary as those details are secured by their inclusion on the approved plans.

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude the appeal should be allowed.