Appeal 6002534

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Prior Approval Application for an upward extension of one additional floor containing 2 no. flats to an existing three storey detached block of flats under Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) - Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A (New dwellinghouses on detached blocks of flats) at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name].25/0884 and the details submitted with it including plan nos 2891-RDJWL-01-ZZ-DR-A-0016 Rev C1 (Existing and Proposed block plans), 2891-RDJWL-01-ZZ-DR-A-0020 Rev C1 (Proposed Site Layout) and 2891- RDJWL-01-ZZ-DR-A-0025 Rev C1 ([name] and Elevations) subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Schedule 2, Part 20, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) permits the construction of up to two additional storeys of new dwellinghouses, immediately above the existing topmost residential storey, on a building which is a purpose-built, detached block of flats. This is subject to limitations and conditions.

The Council concluded that the proposal would comply with the conditions and limitations set out at paragraph A.1 of Class A, such that it would fall within the scope of permitted development rights, subject to consideration of relevant prior approval matters. In this regard, the Council has refused to grant prior approval, due to matter (e) the external appearance of the building.

The Council lists a number of development plan policies within its reason for refusal. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) together with relevant development plan policies, can be relevant in the assessment of prior approval appeals, but only insofar as they relate to the development and prior approval matters. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is therefore whether the external appearance of the building would be acceptable.

The appeal building is an L-shaped, three storey block of flats in a prominent corner position, giving it a strong presence within its immediate setting and in longer distance views. Although other three storey buildings exist nearby, particularly at the near end of [address], the appeal building nevertheless holds the greatest visual prominence due to its corner location, its close relationship with the surrounding roads and the combined effect of its scale and mass.

Along [site address] , the residential built form is predominantly traditional, drawing on Victorian and Edwardian influences that produce more articulated façades, steeper roof forms and a generally more modest scale. When set against this backdrop, the appeal building’s simpler post-war form, together with its height and roof profile, results in a markedly different appearance that accentuates its visual prominence. Even where flats on [address] reach a similar height, their lower ground level and more recessed positioning away from the road frontage reduce their presence and impact when compared with the appeal building.

A further contrast arises along the nearest part of [address], where period villa-type properties contribute to a more domestic scale. The open character of the cemetery directly opposite the site increases the number and range of viewpoints from which the appeal building is perceived, reinforcing its prominence relative to these lower and more traditional forms.

Across these differing contexts, the appeal building consistently reads as a taller and more visually dominant element. This results from the combination of its height, its siting and its post-war architectural expression, including the use of red brick, white panelling and a shallow roof profile.

The proposal would maintain its existing architectural style, reflecting closely the existing red brick materials, larger window pattern and upvc style, and roof form. Replicating the existing shallow roof form would minimise the additional height created. Furthermore, relative to the height and proportions of the existing building, the increase would be appear relatively modest, particularly when viewed in longer distant views. Although the Council criticises the proposed window pattern, the GPDO requires the design to follow the existing architectural form.

Although the footprint of the building would remain unchanged, the additional storey would introduce a more noticeable vertical emphasis. Even so, the increase in height represents a modest percentage uplift when compared with the existing structure, and this limits its overall visual impact. The building already holds a prominent position within the local townscape, and this established presence means that the change would read as a natural evolution of its form rather than a sudden or intrusive alteration.

At close range, the additional height would be perceptible, but the change would not undermine the coherence of the architecture. The building’s established design language would remain clearly recognisable, and the upward extension would sit comfortably within its existing proportions. When viewed from a distance, the effect would be even more limited. The modest uplift in height would quickly diminish in visual terms, particularly when seen against surrounding development and the wider landscape context.

I have had regard to the recently approved Greenacre development opposite the site. Although it was at an early stage of construction and not accessible during my visit, I have reviewed the approved elevation plans. These show a three-storey building with the upper floor partly within the roof space, and with ground levels that appear lower than those at the appeal site. As explained earlier in my reasoning, that scheme sits within a different context, being set back from the road and positioned alongside other flatted development. For these reasons, it is not directly comparable with the proposal before me.

Even so, the presence of other flatted buildings in the vicinity contributes to a broader pattern of similar development in the area. This means that a taller block of flats on the appeal site would not appear unexpected. However, my conclusion that the proposal is acceptable rests on its own merits, and the Greenacre scheme only adds limited support to that view.

Overall, the proposal would maintain the building’s role as a focal point, and in practical terms the slight increase in height would reinforce rather than dilute this function. The development would therefore have a limited effect on character and appearance, and its contribution to the local area would remain positive. On that basis, I find the external appearance of the proposal to be acceptable.

Insofar as it is relevant, the proposal would comply with Policy EE1 of the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan (2020) and Policy ND5 of the [site address] Village Neighbourhood Plan (2024). Taken together, these policies seek, amongst other things, high-quality design that responds appropriately to its context and reflects a suitable scale and density. It would also align with the aims of the Framework, which promotes high standards of design and expects development to be visually attractive and sympathetic to the character of the area.

The appeal site falls within 5km of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA), which is recognised internationally for supporting rare and vulnerable bird species. Any new residential development in this zone would increase recreational pressure on the SPA. Mitigation is therefore required to make the proposal acceptable and to ensure compliance with the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

Under the terms of granted prior approvals, development cannot begin until the developer has received separate written confirmation from the Local Planning Authority under Regulations 75–77 of the Habitats Regulations. The appellant must demonstrate to the authority that the development would not harm the integrity of the protected sites. This assessment sits with the main parties and must be resolved outside this appeal before any works commence. As a result, it is not a matter for me to consider further in this decision.

The Council has suggested a number of conditions in the event of my allowing the appeal. I have considered these in line with the requirements of the GPDO, together with Planning Practice Guidance and the Framework. I have edited some of the suggested conditions for clarity and enforceability.

As part of the statutory conditions attached to Class A development, the GPDO requires the developer to provide a construction management report before works commence, addressing proposed hours of operation and the mitigation of noise, dust, vibration and traffic. This requirement forms part of the permission granted by the Order, and therefore it is not necessary to impose a further condition seeking a Construction Transport Management Plan. It is likewise unnecessary to repeat the statutory conditions already contained within the GPDO, including those relevant to this form of development.

[name] (18) of Part 20 allows additional conditions reasonably related to the subject matter of the prior approval to be imposed. A condition restricting additional windows or openings is unnecessary, as there are no permitted development rights to alter the external appearance of a block of flats. The provision of electric vehicle charging points is covered by separate legislation, and there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate why a planning condition securing this is necessary.

Details of the external materials are required to ensure an appearance that harmonises with the existing building. It is also necessary to require that refuse storage and collection facilities are provided in accordance with the submitted details prior to first occupation, in the interests of the amenity of existing and future occupiers and for external appearance reasons. In addition, a condition regarding cycle storage provision is necessary for transport and highways reasons.

For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted, subject to conditions.

No development above ground level shall take place until samples of all external facing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved sample details.

The dwellings hereby approved shall not be first occupied until refuse and recycling stores have been provided in accordance with the details set out on plan no 2891-RDJWL-01-ZZ-DR-A-0020 Rev C1 (Proposed Site Layout). These facilities shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

The dwellings hereby approved shall not be first occupied until facilities for lit and covered parking of bicycles, for a minimum of one space per dwelling, and the provision of a charging point with a timer for e-bikes by said facilities, have been provided in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These facilities shall thereafter be retained and maintained in accordance with the approved details. **End of schedule**