Appeal 6003567

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a pitched roof pergola at [site address] , Surrey [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/1102, and the plans submitted with it.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Tandridge District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The planning application subject of this appeal has been submitted retrospectively and at the time of my site visits the pergola was already in place. From my observations, the development appeared to broadly reflect the submitted plans. Nonetheless, for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of those plans.

The appeal has been accompanied by a [name]. This document was not submitted to the Council at the application stage. The document has been provided at appeal in response to one of the reasons given for refusal. Crucially, these documents were not before the Council, its consultees or any interested parties at the application stage, and I cannot be certain that these documents have been reviewed by all parties with an interest in this appeal.

This is tantamount to the submission of new information. The Planning Inspectorate Appeals’ Procedure Guide makes it clear in chapter 16 that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, and it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially what was considered by the Council. I have not therefore considered this new information in this appeal as it would prejudice the Council, its decision and any interested parties.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address], with particular regard to outlook, light, enclosure and overbearing impact.

The appeal property is a detached two‐storey house within a cul‐de‐sac of closely spaced, similarly designed semi‐detached and terraced dwellings under red‐brown tiled roofs. It differs slightly from the prevailing pattern due to its incorporation of a private side garden which fronts the street. It is enclosed by boundary fencing, together with a detached garage. The garage reflects the wider design approach, incorporating a hipped roof with tiles matching those used on surrounding dwellings, and is positioned to the rear of the house, set very close to the rear boundary adjoining the gardens of properties in [address], which form part of the backdrop when viewed from the cul‐de‐sac.

The pergola is located at the rear of the garden, adjoining and broadly aligned with the garage. It is open on three sides and has a hipped, pitched roof finished in tiles that match the garage. Smaller in scale than the garage, it sits at a lower level and is largely screened in views from the street and other public areas, from which only the roof is visible. The structure lies approximately midway between the garage and the two-storey gable wall of the adjoining property, No. [address].

Given its setback behind the built frontage, modest scale, and lower position relative to the adjacent garage, together with its use of materials and roof form reflecting that building, the pergola roof, whilst visible, appears as a subordinate and recessive feature that sits comfortably within the character of the area.

Taking these factors into account, I conclude that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the area and accords with Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008, Policy DP7 of the Tandridge District Local Plan Part 2: [name] 2014, and Policies CCW4 and CCW5 of the Caterham, Chaldon and Whyteleafe Neighbourhood Plan which, amongst other things, seek development that respects local character and delivers contextually appropriate design.

The pergola adjoins the rear boundary and garden of No.[address]. The garden experiences a high degree of enclosure, primarily from the gable wall of No. [address], which runs close to the side boundary for around half the depth of the garden, and to a lesser extent from the appeal dwelling and its garage. This is reinforced by the height of the rear boundary fence, which extends to just below the eaves of the garage. The ground-floor rear elevation of No.16 includes patio doors with sidelights serving a through living room and kitchen, the latter also having a window to the front.

From the rear of No.16, the pergola is visible above the boundary fence from just above its eaves. While this introduces some additional enclosure, it is limited and, when seen in the context of the surrounding built form, does not appear overbearing. The roof is seen against a backdrop of existing roofs in [address] and does not materially increase the proportion of sky occupied. Overshadowing is therefore limited. Taken together, and noting that its roof design reflects the adjacent garage, the pergola appears as a compatible addition that does not materially harm the outlook from No.16.

Having regard to its relatively low height, position and distance between the No. 16 and the development, I am satisfied that the development does not result in any meaningful loss of light to the neighbouring garden or to the ground-floor accommodation of No.16.

I therefore find that the development does not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. As such, it complies with Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008 and Policy DP7 of the Tandridge District Local Plan Part 2: [name] 2014 which, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that development does not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the living conditions of nearby residents.

A third party has raised concerns about compliance with permitted development rights, the absence of alternative designs or locations, and the retrospective nature of the works. These matters are noted. However, whether the development meets the requirements of permitted development, and whether alternative designs or siting could have been pursued, are not matters before me in this appeal. In any event, there is no requirement for the appellant to demonstrate that alternative options have been explored. The fact that the works have been carried out retrospectively does not, in itself, weigh against the proposal. The appeal has been determined on its planning merits, having regard to the main issues identified above.

As the development has already been carried out, it is not necessary to impose any

I have found the development causes no harm to the character and appearance of the area and does not adversely affect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. It complies with the development plan, read as a whole, and there are no material considerations to indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.