Appeal 3363624

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the development on (i) the character and appearance of the host property and area in general; and (ii) the living conditions of occupiers of No. [address].

The appeal property is within a predominantly residential area which has various designs of residential properties. The appeal property is a large, detached property. Some properties in the area have been altered of extended historically, including the appeal site.

The proposed alteration to the front of the property would provide a two-storey central gable projection with ground floor front door to the elevation facing the highway, the current main entrance is to the side of the property. Whilst a modern addition this feature would balance the property and would not be out of keeping with the diversity of properties in the area.

The proposed rear first floor extension would increase the mass of the existing property, creating a bulky elongated built form which would not be sympathetic to the existing property.

Whilst there are different designs of properties in the area, the proposed rear extension would be disproportionate to the existing dwelling. Due to the orientation of No. [address] to the appeal site and the gaps between the appeal property Appeal Decision: APP/K3605/D/25/3363624 and No’s 53 and 57 the proposed rear extension would be a dominant addition and incongruous to the streetscene.

The appellant has provided a street scene analysis detailing plot sizes, footprints and coverage of properties in the immediate area in an attempt to demonstrate that the proposed development would not be bulky. Even though other properties in the area may have more plot coverage in terms of their built form I am not persuaded that this analysis demonstrates that the proposed development would not be bulky.

I find that the development would harm the character and appearance of the host property and area in general.

In relation to the main issue relating to character and appearance the proposed development would conflict with Policies CS11 and CS17 of the of the [name] (2011) (the [name]), and Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Local Plan, Development Management Plan (2015) (the Local Plan), which amongst other things seeks to support well-designed, high-quality development which preserve or enhance the character of an area.

There is also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) and the National Design Guide which seeks to ensure developments are of good design appropriate and sympathetic to their surroundings.

No. [address] is to the west of the appeal site; there is a shared garage building between the properties, to the front of No. 57’s built form. The proposed rear extension would cover the existing ground floor extension and encompass a slight projection beyond to incorporate the first-floor balcony.

Given the oblique angle that No. 57 is orientated in relation to the appeal site the front extension would not harm the living conditions of occupiers of No. 57.

The Council asserts that the front of No. 57 is the east elevation facing towards the appeal site. Whilst landscaping is present between the properties along the shared boundary, the large expanse of the proposed first floor rear extension would be dominant in terms of the views afforded from windows facing the appeal site and from the garden area in front of the Council’s defined front elevation. I find that due to the mass and proximity the resulting development would be overbearing to the occupiers of No. 57.

Windows are proposed in the first-floor west elevation facing No. 57 serving an en-suite, linen room and office. The office could be utilised for working at home potentially for a number of hours a day, the window if fixed and obscurely glazed would provide a poor-quality living accommodation. Notwithstanding this whilst these windows could be obscurely glazed and fixed which could be controlled by the imposition of a planning condition there would still be a sense of being overlooked due to the proximity of the proposed development in relation to the neighbouring property. I find the proposed works would harm the privacy currently enjoyed by the occupiers of No. 57.

In relation to the main issue relating to the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of No. [address], there is conflict with Policy DM2 of the Local Plan and to the advice provided by [name] (2024) which seeks amongst other things to protect the amenities of existing properties. Appeal Decision: APP/K3605/D/25/3363624

The appellant contends that the Council failed to consider policy DM1a relating to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. I note that this policy is referenced in the Planning Officer Report, I have not been provided with substantive evidence to demonstrate that this policy was not considered. Notwithstanding this it can be seen from my reasons above that the proposed development conflicts with planning policy in terms of the main issues.

For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.