Appeal 6003560

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the appeal was lodged the Council adopted the Spelthorne Local Plan 2024- 2039/40 on 17 March 2026. The policies in the Spelthorne Local Plan 2024- 2039/40 supersede policies from the [name] and policy Development Plan Document (adopted [site address] February 2009), which were included in the Council’s decision notice. I am required to determine the appeal against the development plan in place at the time of my decision, which I have done.

The Spelthorne Design Code (The Code) was also adopted on the 17 March 2026 and replaces Design of [name] and New Residential Development Supplementary Planning [name] 2011. The Code was adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document which provides further guidance on design policies within the Spelthorne Local Plan 2024- 2039/40.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling ( [site address] [address]) and surrounding area.

[site address] is a residential suburban area with a mix of detached and semi-detached houses and bungalows. These properties have differing architectural styles and forms but often sit in a spacious plot. The properties are generally set back from the road and appear to have long and spacious gardens. The properties a long [name] have a fairly consistent building line and the gaps between the properties. Walking along [site address] the properties are in a linear formation and there is very little evidence of tandem development.

[site address] [address] is a semi-detached property with a gable roof with a rear dormer and its design is simple. There is a large gap between 24 and [site address] [address] and this contributes positively to the character of the area. [site address] [address] has a long and spacious plot which is reflective of the character of the area.

The proposed development is for a first-floor side extension with a gap on the ground floor level to allow access to a proposed bungalow. It also includes a double storey rear extension and a single storey rear extension. The main property would be subdivided into three flats. Thus, a total of four residential units is proposed on site.

I acknowledge that permission 18/01173/HOU includes two storey side and rear extension, but I do not have the full details before me to make a comparison to the appeal site. I have made the decision based on the evidence before me. Thus, the proposed development would erode the gap between 24 and [site address] [address] which would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area.

While there are architectural differences along [site address] , the proposed development cumulative extensions would increase the massing of the property to an extent that it would dominate the simple character of the [site address] [address]. This would lead to [site address] [address] having an incongruous appearance and would appear cramped within its plot. The proposed development would lead to four residential units on the site of an existing dwellinghouse. The increase in density would not be in keeping with the character of the area which is described by houses and bungalows.

Glimpses of the proposed bungalow would be visible from the street scene and this is not in keeping with the linear character of [site address] . The access to the proposed bungalow would appear contrived in the street scene and add further to the proposed development’s cramped appearance. The proposed bungalow’s position and orientation would lead to the erosion of the spacious garden and this would further compound the cramped appearance of the proposed development within the plot which would causes further harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework finds that design guides and design codes carry weight in decision-making and should be produced either as part of a plan or as supplementary planning documents. The Code in summary finds that extensions should not over dominate the host building and must respect the character of the surrounding area. It also finds that site layout and the orientation of new dwellings should follow the established pattern of development, with plot sizes and shapes generally reflecting those found along the street. The code indicates that any new access routes should be designed so they do not cause visual harm to the street scene. As the proposed development is not reflective of the design principles set out in the Code it is therefore contrary to it.

In conclusion, when all is considered, the proposed development would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the [site address] [address] and the surrounding area. Thus, the proposed development would not comply with the provisions set out in policy PS2 of Spelthorne Local Plan 2024- 2039/40 adopted on 17 March 2026. This policy seeks to protect character and appearance through securing a high standard in the design.

The appellant has raised that there is a lack of objection from technical consultees and the proposed development has been designed by an architect. However, these matters do not negate the harm I have identified with regards to character and appearance and conflict with the local development plan.

The appellants have indicated that a similar size outbuilding could be erected under permitted development rights and this represents a fallback position. An outbuilding would have a different appearance and intensity of use to a standalone dwelling and therefore would likely be less harmful than the appeal scheme. Thus, I give the fallback position limited weight.

The appellant has indicated that appeal APP/R3515/W/25/3373554 is relevant to this appeal. However, APP/R3515/W/25/3373554 relates to detached bungalow in Ipswich and is therefore in a different planning authority with a different local development plan and thus is not comparable to the appeal site. Therefore, this appeal carries limited weight in this appeal decision.

The appellant has raised that appeal APP/Z3635/W/24/3343497 demonstrates that the council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. However, this appeal was allowed before the adoption of Spelthorne Local Plan 2024- 2039/40 on 17 March 2026. Since adopting Spelthorne Local Plan 2024- 2039/40 the council can now demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and have provided evidence to demonstrate this. This appeal therefore carries limited weight in this

I acknowledge that the proposed development would provide the following benefits: 4 additional residential units would increase the supply of housing in the Borough, and the new dwellings would be in an accessible location. However, in my judgement, any benefits to be drawn in these senses would be insufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified.

Reference has been made to the acceptable living conditions the scheme would provide for future occupiers and that the amenities of neighbours would not be harmed. However, these are not benefits of the scheme that weigh in its favour as this is what is expected of all development in order to be acceptable.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.