Appeal 6003433

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The appeal site lies within the Green Belt. However, I am mindful that the Council does not regard the proposal as inappropriate development, on the basis that the principle of development complies with Policy DP12 of the Tandridge District Local Plan Part 2: [name] 2014-2029 (adopted July 2014) (LP). From my review of the evidence and site visit, I see no reason to disagree.

Accordingly, the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 67 [site address] , with particular regard to outlook and privacy.

The appeal site comprises a detached, hipped roof bungalow situated within a mixed residential streetscene in Tatsfield. A flat-roofed single garage is attached to the north side of the dwelling, abutting the shared boundary with No 67. The site slopes markedly down away from the road towards the rear, such that its existing patio and raised decking area immediately behind the dwelling sit well above the level of the inclined garden.

A standard height close boarded fence, which follows the falling ground level, forms the joint boundary with No 67, an adjacent detached dormer bungalow. This neighbouring property, which has a broadly L‐shaped footprint, has a slightly lower main floor level than the appeal dwelling. Its lengthy rearward element, separated from the mutual boundary by a stepped area of decking, incorporates a much lower floor level than the main part of the house and contains two sets of side-facing doors towards the appeal site, one of which serves the lower level.

The evidence indicates no dispute between the parties regarding the extension to the rear of the existing garage. Given its siting and modest scale, I agree that it would have no material impact on the living conditions of No 67.

The larger rear extension, which would be set at the same floor level as the existing dwelling, would project 5 m from the rear wall would be spaced from the shared boundary with No 67 by the width of the existing garage. Although not included within the description of development, the plans indicate that a raised patio or similar external surface would be constructed across the extension’s full width. Partially enclosed by a balustrade, this platform would project considerably further into the rear garden than the extension itself. To either side and projecting to the same depth, the plans appear to also show a slightly lower level, yet still raised external surface, from which steps would descend into the remaining part of the garden.

Because the extension would adopt the same internal floor level as existing, of which is higher than No 67, and given its substantial depth, the proposal’s overall massing as perceived from this adjacent property would be considerable. The increasing height towards the rear, relative to the falling ground levels and necessary to accommodate the proposed raised patio, would create a more prominent and imposing presence close to the shared boundary than the submitted plans suggest, as they do not reflect the existing sloping levels.

Given this bulk, combined with the limited separation between the resulting buildings, and the existence of side-facing doors at the lower level of No 67, the proposal would have unduly overbearing and domineering effect upon outlook. Moreover, if the currently sloping fence were to be raised and/or levelled as the plans appear to suggest, it would create a boundary enclosure of such great height that it would appear oppressive and overbearing when experienced from No 67’s side doors and its adjoining decked areas.

The appeal site is situated to the north of No 67, and the Council do not object to the proposal in respect of its impact upon daylight and sunlight to this neighbouring property. I agree with this assessment. Nevertheless, this is a separate consideration to outlook, and it does not undermine the harm that I identified in that regard.

Due to the existing openings and the limited height of the boundary fence relative to the level of the respective external decked areas, there is already a degree of mutual overlooking between Nos 65 and 67. The proposed extension to the bungalow does not include any side-facing glazing towards No 67, and therefore, in isolation, this element of the scheme would not lead to any additional loss of privacy to the neighbouring occupier.

However, due to their extensive width, depth and apparent height in relation to existing ground levels, I am in no doubt that the proposed external areas to the rear of the extension and immediately adjacent to the common boundary with No [address] to a markedly harmful degree of overlooking. During my site visit, I noted that at their rearmost point, these platforms would be set at height which approximately corresponds to the height of top of the existing boundary fence. As a result, these areas would allow inappropriately elevated, short-range views over the boundary towards No 67, thereby significantly diminishing the level of privacy currently afforded to its occupiers.

I note the appellant’s suggestion that the finished level of these newly formed external areas could be controlled by condition. However, I am not persuaded that this would be appropriate, as achieving an acceptable height in relation to the boundary and the neighbouring property would require a fundamental redesign of the scheme. As outlined above, I have also discounted any reliance on altering the fence as a means of mitigating the resulting loss of privacy, given that to be effective, this would result in a harmfully excessive high boundary treatment as viewed from No 67’s side.

The appellant has drawn attention to what it describes as a fall-back position having been established through the permitted development (PD) process in respect of a scheme that would add a storey to the dwelling.

The Courts have held that in considering the concept of a fall-back development as a material consideration, there should be a “real prospect” of it being implemented, and not just a theoretical possibility that the development might take place. It is also held that it is for the decision-maker to exercise their planning judgement on this matter and to ascribe the appropriate weight.

I have no reason to doubt that there is a realistic prospect of the appellant implementing the PD scheme. However, I have seen no evidence that such an upward extension would also include rear extensions or the associated construction of rear external platforms, as are shown on the proposed plans. While the PD scheme would add a greater overall mass to the dwelling, it is plainly of a different nature and would not generate comparable effects on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 67. In addition, there is nothing before me to indicate that both the PD scheme and appeal proposal could not be built. Thus, I have attached only very limited weight to the stated fall-back position.

For these reasons, the proposed development would unacceptably harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at 67 [site address] , with particular regard to outlook and privacy. Accordingly, it would be contrary to Policy DP7 of the LP, Policy CSP 18 of the [name] (adopted October 2008) and Policy TNP04A of the Tatsfield Neighbourhood Plan 2017-2033 (made June 2024). Taken together, these policies require, amongst other things, that new development does not significantly harm the amenities and privacy of occupiers of neighbouring properties by reason of overlooking or overbearing effects, provides a satisfactory environment for existing occupiers, and responds positively to the size and scale of neighbouring buildings. It would also fail to reflect the National Planning Policy Framework’s expectation that new development provides a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

Third party representations draw attention to an inaccuracy in the boundary line between the appeal site and No 67 as shown on the proposed Block Plan. I note the clear discrepancy between this plan, and the boundary as consistently depicted on the Location Plan, Proposed Ground Floor Plan and [name], of which I observed to be an accurate reflection of the situation on the ground.

I acknowledge that the proposed extension would provide increased space for the appellant’s family and has been designed to reflect modern living preferences. Reference is also made to an improved relationship with the rear garden and to unsubstantiated claims of sustainability benefits. Minor in scope, these are largely private benefits that attract only limited weight in support of the scheme. Moreover, similar advantages could likely be achieved through an alternative scheme that does not unacceptably affect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Although the proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and is acceptable in highway terms, these are neutral matters as required by policy and so weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

Overall, the above matters are insufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 67.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations that indicate that permission should be granted. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.