Appeal 6003448

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to erection of a rear dormer window to facilitate loft conversion with rooflight and solar panels to front and dormer window to rear. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to single storey front extension, replacement of front, side and rear roof with pitched roof at Sandstones, [site address] , [name], [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/02421, and the plans submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following conditions.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, in so far as they relate to the single storey front extension, replacement of front, side and rear roof with pitched roof hereby permitted: 2023/69/S01, 2023/69/S02, 2023/69/S03, 2023/69/P01, 2023/69/P02 [name], 2023/69/P03 [name] and 2023/69/L01 [name].

The materials and finishes to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the single storey front extension, replacement of front, side and rear roof with pitched roof hereby permitted shall match those of the existing dwelling.

Should during the construction of the development hereby permitted any bats are found, all work must stop, and the advice sought from a licensed bat ecologist.

Should there be a time delay of greater than 12 months between the date of the bat survey undertaken by Urban Tree Experts and the commencement of the development herby permitted, a further ecological appraisal should be undertaken and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of any works.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the proposal on the host dwelling.

[site address] is characterised by individually designed modern houses that occupy generous sized mature landscaped plots which include numerous mature trees and tall hedges. This together with the sloping topography which rises to the west; informal building lines; grass verges; and absence of pavements and street lights contributes to the informal spacious and sylvan character and appearance of the street scene. Due to the sloping topography and mature planting and trees the roofscape of the area makes a material contribution to the street scene.

The appeal dwelling occupies an elevated position and is one of a pair of modern two storey detached houses that occupy generous sized plots. The other dwelling ([name]) sits at a materially lower level to the appeal dwelling. Both dwellings are located towards the rear of their plots and have particularly deep front gardens that are well screened from the street scene by mature trees and hedges. Their rear gardens are shallow and the appeal property backs onto the front garden of the adjacent dwelling, ([name]), whose plain flank wall faces towards the appeal site.

[name] is accessed via a private drive that runs along the western boundary of the appeal property, with a rural footpath immediately beyond. A short distance to the east of the appeal property is [address], with an open area of grassland and scrub on the opposite side of the road. The appeal dwelling is largely screened from [address] and the open green by the adjacent dwelling and mature hedges and trees. There are however occasional glimpses of the roofs of the two dwellings through the planting on the west side of [address]. Similarly, there are glimpses of the side roof slopes from [site address] and clear views of the side and rear roof-slopes from the access to [name] and the rural footpath.

Policy EN4 of the Mole Valley Local Plan (LP), policy BKEN2 of the Bookham Neighbourhood Plan 201`5-2026 (BNP) and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) have been referred to in the council’s decision notice. Together and amongst other things they seek to ensure that new development is of a high quality design and makes a positive contribution to local character. It should be of an appropriate scale, height, massing, proportion, and form and should include architectural detailing that responds to detailing on the host building.

The Mole Valley Design Guidance for [name] and outbuildings Supplementary Planning Document 2025 (SPD), is consistent with this. Collectively paragraphs 5.23 to 5.27, advise that roofs are an important feature of buildings. The aim should be to retain the maximum area of uninterrupted roof slope and for the roof extension to be subsidiary to the original building. Large single-flat roofed dormers tend to create boxlike features which dominate the roof slope. Wide dormers can spoil the proportions of roofs and windows should reflect and be proportionately smaller than the existing windows. This is to reflect the subordinate role of the roof in comparison with the main dwelling.

The proposed front extension would be modest in depth and form. It would have a pitched roof which would continue over the existing flat roofed garage and rear extension. The proposed new roof on the main part of the dwelling would be noticeably taller and more steeply pitched. Whilst it would change the appearance of the dwelling, it would nonetheless respect the host dwelling and would blend in appropriately with the diverse roofscape in the locality. These elements of the proposal would improve the appearance and architectural quality of the dwelling.

The proposed rooflight on the front elevation would be modest in form and would be contained within the existing roof slope. As a result, it would be unobtrusive and would not impact on the character or appearance of the host dwelling. The proposed solar panels are symmetrically aligned and would be flush with the roof-slope. They would sit a reasonable distance below the main ridge line; would not project across the whole width of the dwelling; and would be recessed behind the front projecting gable. For these reasons the proposed solar panels would appear well balanced and would respect the proportions and appearance of the host dwelling.

Conversely the proposed rear dormer extension would occupy most of the rear roof slope and would project close to the ridge line and the sides of the roof. It would project out from the roof slope by 2.43 metres and would be 2.43 metres in height. Whilst the windows within the dormer would align with the existing first floor windows, they would be the same size or larger than the first-floor windows. It is acknowledged that the proposed dormer extension’s roof pitch would match that of the proposed roof over the ground floor extensions. However, due to its shallow pitch the proposed dormer extension would still appear boxlike from ground level due to its height and the steeper pitch of the main roof, despite the use of matching materials.

Overall, due to its combined roof pitch, depth, height, and the position of its cheeks close to the gable ends, the proposed dormer extension would appear dominant, top heavy, awkward, and out of keeping with the host dwelling. Its overbearing impact would be exacerbated by its elevated position above the ridge line of [name].

For these reasons this element of the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling. I acknowledge that public views of the proposed rear dormer extension would be largely limited to the adjacent properties and rural path. Also, that the planting between the appeal property and [name] would minimise any overlooking of that property. However, these are not good reasons for allowing a proposal that would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its immediate setting.

The harm that would be caused by the proposed rear dormer extension would outweigh the design benefits of the proposed ground floor additions, as well as the benefits for the appellant and their family that would result from the additional upper floor accommodation. This harm is not something that could be satisfactorily addressed through the imposition of

I conclude on the main issue that the proposed rear dormer extension would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Accordingly it would conflict with LP Policy EN4, BNP policy BKEN2, paragraph 135 of the Framework and [name] 5.23 to 5.27. Conversely, the proposed front extension; wrap around roof extension; raising of the ridge line; roof light and solar panels would respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and would comply with the above policies and advice.

In view of the acceptability of various elements of the proposal I have considered the possibility of making a split decision. As the front ground floor extension and wrap around ground floor roof are physically and functionally separate to the proposed rear dormer extension a split decision relating to them is possible and appropriate. However, the raising of the ridge hight, rooflight and solar panels are all either physically and/or functionally linked to the proposed dormer extension. As such I am unable to issue a split decision in favour of them.

Finally, I have carefully considered the [name] submitted by the appellant, along with paragraph 187 of the Framework and the comments from Surrey Wildlife Trust. There is hard surfacing on the ground to the front, side and rear of the dwelling and the ground floor elements of the proposal relate to a modern flat roof over a garage and kitchen. The ground floor proposals would not impact on the main roof of the dwelling, or any existing planting.

[name] am satisfied that these works would be highly unlikely to affect any roosting opportunities for bats, exceptions should be considered. Therefore, the contingency plan set out in paragraph 7.2 of the [name] by [name], dated 12 September 2025 should be made the subject of conditions. However, having regard to paragraph 187 of the Framework, the location of the dwelling and the nature and setting of the ground floor proposals I do not consider it would be necessary or reasonable to require any ecological enhancements.

Having regard to the conclusions of the main issue and all other matters raised the appeal is dismissed in-so-far as it relates to the erection of a rear dormer window to facilitate loft conversion with rooflight and solar panels to front and dormer window to rear. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the single storey front extension, replacement of front, side, and rear roof with pitched roof.