Appeal 6003320

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.47 with respect to their outlook.

The site is located within the developed area of [site address] and accommodates the end property in a terrace of four. The terrace backs onto a similar terrace of four properties and the house at No.39 adjoins the house at No.47. The gardens of these two homes are to their side. The appeal property, and No.47, do not reflect the building lines of their host terraces with No.39 set slightly back, and therefore No.47 set slightly forward. Indeed, this design feature is common in other terraces in Oakridge.

The proposed two-storey side extension would project further forward than the existing house, albeit not quite as far forward as the rest of the terrace. Nonetheless, this projection forward, in combination with that of the remainder of the terrace, would result in the existing house being visually enclosed and it would disrupt the characteristic staggered design of the terrace. Although the height of the extension would be lower than that of the existing house, and it would be much narrower, the extension would not be subservient because of its forward position compared to the existing dwelling. The use of matching finishing materials would not mitigate the harm either.

There is a two-storey side extension at No.20. But this is set back from the host dwelling at first floor level and so reflects the staggered building line of that terrace and of other terraces in Oakridge. The appeal proposal would be more hidden than that extension, as it is further from the highway. Nonetheless, it would be visible in the street scene because it would be set further forward than the existing house.

As a result, the development would harmfully contrast with the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with policy DM9 of the adopted [name] (2012) which requires development to be of high-quality design, and policy DH1 of the emerging Surrey Heath Local Plan which aims to ensure that development respects the distinct local character of the area. It would also fail to accord with principles 10.1 and 10.3 of the Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2017) (the ‘SPD’) which advises that extensions should not erode the character of the street scene and will be expected to be subordinate and consistent with the architectural style of the original building.

On the plans, the extension is shown to be 0.3m from the boundary with No.47, which comprises a close boarded fence around 1.8m in height. The extension would present a two-storey blank elevation to No.47 and would extend for nearly half of the width of the garden. It would therefore appear prominently above the fence and would severely reduce the outlook from the neighbouring garden and the amount of daylight within it. Furthermore, by being to the southeast of the garden at No.47, it would likely block off direct sunlight, particularly in the morning.

It is understood that until recently there was a large tree in the garden of the appeal site which blocked off a large amount of sunlight to the neighbour’s garden. Nonetheless, the extension would be much closer to the garden and have a more permanent and solid form. In any case, as the tree has now been removed, more sunlight is being received by the garden at No.47, which the extension would limit.

As such, the development would have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.47 in respect of their outlook. It would hence conflict with policies DM9, which seeks to ensure that development respects the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties, and DH1 which supports development which would not adversely affect the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of neighbouring properties, having regard to loss of daylight and sunlight. It would also conflict with principles 8.3 and 10.1 of the SPD which state that development should not overshadow or cause a material loss of daylight or sun access for the occupants of neighbouring dwellings.

Although the appellant states there is a need for family homes, such as that which the appellant suggests would result from the proposal, I have no substantive evidence to support this. I also understand substantial dialogue has taken place with the Council. However, I must consider the development on its planning merits.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations to indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore the appeal is dismissed.