Appeal 6002682

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a part two storey and part single storey extension and subdivision of residential site into 2 x 2-bedroom dwellings; demolition of previous extension and garage at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application reference 25/1008/FFU, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The description of development was revised by the Council during the application determination period. However, no tacit proof of the appellant’s agreement to the revision has been provided, and the appeal form uses the original description provided on the application form. Therefore, I have determined this appeal based on the original description, which I consider is an accurate description of the development sought by the appellant.

The proposal has been considered by the Secretary of State in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (SI 571/2017). A screening direction has been issued which states that the proposal is not Environmental Impact Assessment development.

The main issues are:  the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with regard to the site layout;  whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, with regard to private outdoor amenity space;  whether the proposal makes adequate provision for vehicle parking, in the interests of highway safety; and  the effect of the proposal on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area.

The appeal site is an end of terrace 4 bedroom property located on a corner site within a predominantly residential area. Access to the site is from [site address] . The site also has an elevation facing [address] which is screened by vegetation. The surrounding area features a mix of residential typologies including semi-detached 2 storey dwellings and bungalows.

The proposal involves extensions to the existing property and subdivision to create 2 x 2 bedroom houses, alongside outdoor amenity space, on site parking and refuse facilities. An existing extension and garage would be demolished.

The proposed subdivision would lead to alterations to the site layout and result in smaller plot sizes, although I do not consider that this would lead to a more cramped appearance. The proposal would retain the same separation distances between the [site address] and [address] site boundaries. The plans show that the entrances to the proposed dwellings would be accessed from [site address] , as is the case with the current single dwelling.

The siting of the building would be unchanged except for the extended element of the building which would protrude further to the south. The proposal would introduce an additional parking space within the site and provide outdoor amenity space adjacent to each house, but these would be sited appropriately and would not exacerbate or lead to any sense of a cramped feeling within the site.

While the site would be visible from the public realm, the proposed configuration would not be unusual within the context of the wider area, which features a variety of plot sizes, typologies and layouts.

In conclusion, the proposal would not have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the area with regard to the site layout and would therefore be in accordance with Policy DM9 of the [name] and Development Management Policies 2011-2028 (adopted February 2012) (CSDMP). This policy sets out a number of design principles for new development including ensuring high quality design with layouts that maximise opportunities for linkages to the surrounding area and local services; and ensuring that development respects and enhances the local, natural or historic character of the environment be it in an urban or rural setting, paying particular regard to scale, materials, massing, bulk and density.

The proposal would accord with paragraph 129 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) (the Framework) which supports development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account various considerations including the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting.

The proposal would also accord with Principle B2 of the Lightwater Village Design Statement Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (October 2007), which seeks to protect the village character of Lightwater by resisting development which erodes the generally smaller scale character of the village.

Policy DM9 of the CSDMP states that development will be acceptable where, amongst other things, it provides sufficient private and public amenity space. The Residential Design Guide SPD (September 2017) (the [name]) provides further guidance relating to the required quality of such space, including principle 8.1 which seeks a reasonable degree of privacy for sensitive outdoor amenity spaces, and principle 8.4 which sets out minimum outdoor amenity space standards.

The RDG SPD has different minimum space standards depending on the orientation of the proposed space. The proposed plans show that the outdoor amenity space for House 1 would be predominantly north facing, while the space for House 2 would be predominantly south facing. The RDG SPD principle 8.4 indicates a minimum outdoor amenity space size standard of [address] metres (sqm) and 55sqm for Houses 1 and 2 respectively.

There is uncertainty regarding the quantum of outdoor amenity space that would be provided. The Design and [name] indicates that approximately 68sqm of space would be provided for House 1 and 65sqm for House 2 (excluding the shared driveway). However, the Council suggest that House 1 would provide approximately 70sqm and House 2 would provide 40sqm.

In terms of the quantum proposed, House 1 provides sufficient space in line with the [name] requirements. Based on the Council’s figures for House 2, there would be an under-provision of 15sqm of outdoor amenity space assessed against the [name] standards. However, the [name] standards should not be applied mechanistically. In this case, I consider that the proposed quantum of space for House 2 would be sufficient to fulfil the necessary functions for outdoor amenity space that are identified in the [name].

The proposed spaces for Houses 1 and 2 would both provide opportunity for high quality outdoor amenity space that serves a number of household functions. The plans show that the spaces for both houses would contain cycle parking and bin stores, which would be suitable within these spaces and would accord with the [name].

While there is a lack of detail regarding boundary treatments, the outdoor amenity spaces would be directly accessible from the respective properties and would maintain a reasonable sense of privacy, both within the site and with regard to [site address] and [address]. House 2 would be adjacent to the proposed parking spaces but this would not compromise the privacy, security or usability of the space, and it would provide ample room to allow for pedestrian movement around the parking space. The space would still clearly read as private outdoor amenity space for House 2 given its positioning within the site.

Consequently, I find no harm to living conditions for future occupiers with regard to private outdoor amenity space. The proposal therefore accords with Policy DM9 of the CSDMP, and the intentions of the [name].

The proposal would also accord with section 12 of the Framework, which states that planning decisions should ensure that developments, amongst other things, create places with a high standard of amenity for future users.

The Council refer to Surrey County Council guidance relating to maximum vehicle parking standards and parking space dimensions (SCC guidance). The proposal includes 2 on-site vehicle parking spaces, which would accord with maximum parking standards for 2 bed houses set out in the SCC guidance.

The proposal would not accord with the SCC guidance in terms of the required width of one of the proposed vehicle parking spaces. However, the difference would be relatively marginal, and the standards should not be applied mechanistically. Therefore, I am content that the proposed space would be functional and large enough to accommodate a range of vehicles and avoid occupiers parking on street.

In conclusion, the proposal would make adequate provision for vehicle parking and accord with Policy DM11 of the CSDMP. This policy seeks to avoid development which would adversely impact the safe and efficient flow of traffic movement on the highway network and ensure that development provides safe and well designed vehicular access and egress and layouts which consider the needs and accessibility of all highway users.

The proposal would also accord with paragraph 115 of the Framework, which states that development should ensure safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users.

The proposal would not precisely conform to standards set out in the SCC guidance. However, as I have found no conflict with the policies of the Development Plan, I am content that the proposal achieves the underlying aim of the SCC guidance in terms of mitigating impacts on the highway network.

The appeal site lies within the 5 kilometre zone of influence of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). The SPA supports important breeding populations of a number of birds of lowland heathland, especially nightjars, woodlarks and Dartford warblers which are the qualifying features which justify the designation of the SPA. The SPA’s conservation objectives aim to ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained or restored as appropriate, and ensure that the site contributes to achieving the aims of the [name], by maintaining or restoring (amongst other things) the extent and distribution of the habitats, the population and the distribution of the qualifying features within the site.

It has been established that all net new residential development within the zone of influence, when considered either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, is likely to have a significant effect on the SPA, resulting from recreational pressure and urbanisation impacts, for example from cat predation. The proposal would create a net gain of 1 dwelling and therefore there would be a likely significant effect on the SPA. As a result, I must undertake an appropriate assessment as the competent authority, in accordance with my duty under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations).

Policy CP14B of the CSDMP, Saved Policy NRM6 of the South East Plan - [name] for the [name] 2009 (the RSS) and the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Avoidance Strategy SPD (March 2019) (the [name]) require, amongst other things, mitigation measures for all net new dwellings within the SPA zone of influence. Such measures must be demonstrated and secured prior to approval of the development and be based on a combination of [name] and Monitoring (SAMM) and the provision or contribution towards Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). The latter is delivered through the [name] (CIL) mechanism whereas the former is typically secured through legal agreement based on the SAMM tariff set out in the [name].

SANGs are areas that currently are not in use for recreation and so are a new alternative provision or are existing areas that are significantly under-used and so have the capacity to absorb additional recreational use. SAMM refers to a project to provide management of visitors across the entire SPA and monitoring of the impact. It addresses the issue of cumulative impact of new development across the SPA, including through promoting the use of SANG, delivering an on-the-ground wardening service to supplement existing wardening efforts, providing an SPA-wide education programme which details the project and includes information about SANGs and where to find them, and undertaking monitoring of both visitor usage and Annex 1 birds.

The Council has indicated that there is currently sufficient SANG available and this development would be CIL liable, so a contribution would be payable on commencement of development.

The application was refused in part due to the absence of a payment towards SAMM measures. The appellant has provided proof of payment as part of the appeal, and as a result the Council has indicated that the issue is no longer in dispute. Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 allows for such payments to be made, and I am satisfied that the payment is a sufficient amount based on the SAMM tariff set out in the [name]. I am also satisfied that the payment would be used to fund SAMM measures set out in the [name], given the Council’s acceptance of the payment.

Natural England has been consulted as part of this Appropriate Assessment and is content that the measures proposed would be sufficient to avoid an adverse impact to the integrity of the site.

As the competent authority, I am satisfied that the proposed SANG and SAMM mitigation measures, secured via CIL payment and from monies already paid to the Council, would be sufficient to address the harm likely to be caused by the development. I therefore find that, subject to the proposed mitigation, the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA and would be in accordance with the Habitats Regulations, Policy CP14B of the CSDMP, Saved Policy NRM6 of the RSS and the [name].

Concerns relating to privacy, noise and car pollution as a result of the increase in dwellings were raised by an interested party. The proposal involves a part 1, part 2 storey extension, which would retain appropriate separation distances with adjacent properties and would not cause adverse impacts relating to privacy for adjacent occupiers.

I am not presented with any technical evidence to suggest that the proposal would cause adverse noise impacts on adjacent dwellings. Notwithstanding this, the design and layout of the building and the proposed parking would be likely to mitigate additional noise and disturbance impacts on adjacent properties, particularly as the proposed parking is sited a reasonable distance away from adjacent dwellings.

With regard to car pollution, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that the proposal would lead to a direct impact on adjacent occupiers and other existing residents in proximity of the site. The proposal accords with maximum car parking standards, which would ensure there is not an excessive number of vehicles parked at the site and therefore would limit any additional impacts associated with car pollution.

A fallback position has been put forward concerning an identical extension, but without the proposed subdivision. However, as the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm, I do not need to consider this matter in further detail.

The main parties have identified that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year land supply of deliverable housing in accordance with the Framework. However, as I have found that the proposal would not have adverse effects that need to be considered in a balancing exercise against any benefits provided, this matter does not need to be considered further.

The Framework in paragraph 57 indicates that conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

The Council has suggested conditions and I have considered these in relation to the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance, amending where necessary in the interests of consistency, precision and enforceability.

As regards the standard commencement condition, the Council has suggested a 1 year commencement condition to prevent an accumulation of unimplemented planning permissions that would affect available SANG capacity. This would be considerably shorter than the standard 3 year length of the commencement

The Council’s justification refers to an Executive resolution which came into effect on 1 August 2019. However, the [name] has been adopted to set out the approach that the Council will take to avoiding harm to the SPA as a result of new housing development, and this document does not mention a reduced commencement condition linked to SANG capacity. I also note that Natural England did not identify the need for a shorter commencement condition as part of the consultation on the Appropriate Assessment.

Taking into account the information provided in this case, it has not been demonstrated that a 1 year commencement condition is necessary or reasonable.

The plans condition is imposed to provide certainty. I have added the drawing titles to the Council’s suggested condition, for the avoidance of any doubt on which plans are approved.

Conditions relating to materials, hard and soft landscaping and tree protection measures are necessary to mitigate adverse impacts on character and appearance. I have amended the Council’s suggested condition relating to tree protection measures to include reference to the relevant document submitted with the appeal.

The Council have suggested a condition requiring submission of a scheme for vehicle parking and turning, which includes requirements for vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear, and for any spaces to be retained exclusively for vehicle parking.

Adequate justification relating to the requirement for vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear has not been provided, therefore a condition requiring such a scheme is not necessary or relevant to the development being permitted. However, I have imposed a condition requiring the proposed vehicle parking spaces to be provided prior to occupation in line with the approved plans, and retained thereafter solely for vehicle parking use, in order to ensure that the development avoids adverse highways impacts.

The Council have suggested a condition requiring submission of a scheme for cycle parking facilities. This suggested condition was overly prescriptive and included requirements that were not adequately justified, and therefore it was not necessary or reasonable. However, I have imposed a condition requiring the proposed cycle parking spaces to be provided prior to occupation and retained thereafter, in order to ensure that the development promotes sustainable transport.

I have not imposed a condition requiring electric vehicle charging as it has not been demonstrated why this condition is necessary.

The proposal would be in accordance with the Development Plan when taken as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the Development Plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions.

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 and documents:  Drawing no. 1836-P-101 No. A – Plans as existing, dated March 2025 (revised 04.08.25)  Drawing no. 1836-P-102 – Plans as proposed, dated March 2025

The development hereby permitted shall be constructed in external fascia materials to match those of the existing building.

No soft or hard landscaping works shall take place until a scheme with full details of soft or hard landscaping works has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. All landscaping works shall be implemented prior to first occupation of the development. The scheme shall include indication of all hard surfaces, walls, fences, access features, the existing trees, and hedges to be retained, together with the new planting to be carried out and the details of the measures to be taken to protect existing features during the construction of the development. Any landscaping which, within 5 years of the completion of the landscaping scheme, dies, becomes diseased, is removed, damaged or becomes defective in anyway shall be replaced in kind.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the vehicle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with drawing no. 1836-P-102. Thereafter those spaces shall be retained for the parking of vehicles only.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until space has been laid out within the site in accordance with drawing no. 1836-P-102 for 4 bicycles (2 per dwelling) to be stored and that space shall thereafter be kept available for the storage of bicycles.

Tree protection measures shall be carried out in strict accordance with drawing no. [name] 01 – Arboricultural Impact Assessment, dated June 2025. The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree and any other protection specified shall be undertaken in entire accordance with the agreed [name]/impact assessment and tree protection plan, along with the approved plans and particulars and before any equipment, machinery or materials (including demolition and all preparatory work) are brought on to the site, and thereafter maintained until all construction work, equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been permanently removed from the site. End of schedule