Appeal 3370634

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed front extension and driveway with new crossover at [site address] , Pyrford, Woking, Surrey [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PLAN/2025/0088, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The proposed development includes a front extension to the existing dwelling. The Council has no objection to this aspect of the scheme on character and appearance grounds. Based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, I have no reason to disagree with those findings.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposed development upon surface water flood risk.

The appeal site forms part of a cluster of residential dwellings along [address] which are set back from the road behind a raised bank, typically planted with trees and hedgerow. These dwellings are accessed from the road via either driveways or residential paths, of which a number incorporate a retaining feature constructed of timber or brick. The appeal site itself comprises the existing property, its associated stepped access and garden. The top of the bank at [site address] is planted with trees and hedgerow, which is well established adjacent to the boundary with [address].

The proposed development includes the insertion of a vehicular crossover and driveway to serve the existing property. This includes the associated hardstanding and levels changes to facilitate the development proposed, alongside works to part of the front bank.

The street scene along this section of [address] is influenced by the variety of existing driveways and paths by which residents gain access to their property from the street. Whilst the section of bank on which No 13 is located does appear somewhat steeper and more elevated than other similar properties along [address], the difference in visual perspective is not significant.

Moreover, whilst the bank does make a modest positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area, this contribution derives principally from the combined effect of the grassed bank and well-established planting. The submitted plans show that significant parts of the existing bank and associated front boundary planting would be preserved, including, specifically, the section adjacent to No 11 with its well-established planting.

The proposed development would entail alterations to a section of bank characterised by the presence of the stepped residential access and notably less well-established planting. As a result, the proposed development would take practicable steps to preserve and respect grass verges, tree screens, and boundary treatments that contribute positively to the character of the area and would not result in an adverse impact to local character in this regard.

Equally, the proposed retention of the portion of the bank that separates the proposed driveway and the boundary with No 11 would act to visually soften the proposed development. This would allow for the proposed hardstanding, associated levels changes, and associated retaining features to be delivered without resulting in the proposals appearing over-engineered or out of context when compared to other developments in the vicinity. In this context, the insertion of a driveway and crossover here would not appear out of place, nor visually disruptive to, the street scene.

The proposed brick wall that would form the boundary between No 13 and [address] would be higher than some other similar features at nearby properties. Nevertheless, this element of the proposal clearly draws from local examples, and the proposed height would not be of such an extent that this element of the proposal would result in an overtly harmful or urbanising effect.

Whilst the Council raise the potential of the need for a retaining feature on the left hand side of the drive when viewed from the frontage, this does not form part of the submitted proposals nor is there evidence to suggest such a feature would be required.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the proposed development would comply with the relevant provisions of Policies CS21 and CS24 of the [name] 2012, and Policy BE 1 of the Pyrford Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2027. These policies, amongst other matters, require development to respect and preserve local character, retain trees of amenity value and avoid impact to boundary treatments that are important to the character and appearance of the area.

Policy CS9 of the [name] 2012 sets out, amongst other matters, that new development within or adjacent to areas at risk of surface water flooding should be accompanied by a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). The policy further identifies that significant forms of development should incorporate appropriate sustainable drainage systems.

Whilst the planning application form identifies that surface water drainage would be managed via discharge to an existing watercourse, the submitted FRA identifies surface water flows are intended to be managed via permeable surfacing and a drainage channel, which would direct run off to a surface water infiltration system.

Full details of the proposed drainage scheme, including matters relating to construction and maintenance, are not before me. However, I am mindful that Planning Practice Guidance identifies that any flood risk assessment should be appropriate to the scale, nature and location of the development. Similarly, the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) identifies that sustainable drainage systems should be proportionate to the nature and scale of the proposal. Based on the evidence provided, including that no part of the site is within an area of high surface water flood risk, together with the limited scale and nature of the scheme and extent of retained garden area, I am of the view that this matter could satisfactorily be dealt with by condition.

I therefore conclude that, subject to condition, the proposed development would not result in an adverse impact upon surface water flood risk. The proposal would comply with the relevant provisions of Policy CS9 of the [name] 2012 which, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that development does not increase flood risk elsewhere and incorporates sustainable drainage systems where drainage could be affected.

[name] has raised concerns with regards to character and appearance and the potential effect of the proposed development on street parking. I have dealt with matters relating to character and appearance above. There is no dispute between the appellant and Council in respect of highways matters. The local highways authority also had involvement at application stage and raised no objection. I see no reason to take a different view.

The Council has raised concerns that allowing the appeal would result in an undesirable precedent in the consideration of future planning applications, in particular with regards matters of character and appearance. [name] recognise the importance of consistency in the planning process and that like cases should be decided in a like manner, I have determined this appeal on its individual circumstances and on the basis of the evidence before me. As such, I am satisfied that my decision would not harm the ability of the Council to exercise its judgement in future cases.

The Council has drawn my attention to a number of previous decisions refusing planning permission for development at the site. [name] do not have full details before me in respect of these decisions, it is clear that several relate to markedly different schemes in scope and context. I am also mindful that the proposal before me was submitted in response to a previous decision by the Council on a similar proposal. I have therefore afforded these other decisions limited weight in reaching my conclusions on this appeal.

The Council has recommended a number of planning conditions be imposed in the event that the appeal is allowed. I have assessed the Council’s suggested conditions with reference to the advice in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. I have amended the wording of some, and combined provisions of others, without altering their fundamental aims.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, in the interests of certainty I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

A condition is necessary for materials on the extension to match those used on the existing dwelling to maintain the character and appearance of the area. A condition is necessary to require full details of the retaining wall to be submitted to ensure the proposed development maintains the character and appearance of the area. A condition is necessary for space to be made available for vehicle parking to ensure the proposed development does not result in an adverse impact upon the highway.

To ensure the proposal makes adequate provision to manage surface water runoff, I have imposed a condition requiring the submission, implementation and retention of a surface water drainage scheme. This condition removes the need for a separate condition related to the use of porous materials as this would be covered under that condition. This condition is a pre-commencement condition as it is necessary to ensure that any potential mitigation is properly designed in prior to the commencement of development.

The Council has also proposed that some permitted development rights should be removed through condition to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The Framework advises that conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so. In this instance I do not consider that clear justification has been provided for the removal of permitted development rights for windows, dormer windows, rooflights, doors or other additional openings. Given the single storey nature of the extension, such a condition is not necessary.

For the above reasons, having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: E01 Existing Site and [name] P01 Proposed Site and [name] P02 [name], Elevations, and Sections V01 Existing and [address] Scenes

No development shall take place until details of a scheme for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system, including details with regards its management and maintenance for the lifetime of the development, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the first use of the development. The sustainable drainage system shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved scheme of management and maintenance.

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

No works above ground level associated with the creation of the hardstanding, retaining wall, and associated hard and soft landscaping, shall be carried out until full details of the retaining wall, including associated levels and visibility splay, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall be retained as such thereafter.

The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with drawing number P01 for cars to be parked. The space shall thereafter be kept available at all times for the parking of vehicles.