Appeal 6003836

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a detached two-storey building with rooms in the roof space, dormer windows and rear balconies containing 11 flats and 2 detached two-storey houses with rooms in the roof space, associated garages, bin and cycle stores and parking following the demolition of the existing dwelling and outbuildings at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application 2025/2138 subject to the conditions set out in the schedule to this decision.

An application for an award of costs was made by Claremont Finesse Ltd against Elmbridge Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

Following determination of the application the appellant has submitted a [name] (UU) which secures measures to mitigate the effects of the development upon the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area (SPA). I return to the UU later in my decision.

The main issues are:  The effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area; and  The effect of the proposed development upon the integrity of the [name].

[address] meanders for a considerable distance and along its length it is characterised by substantial detached dwellings set within spacious grounds. From my observations during the site visit it is evident that a great number of dwellings have been extended or remodelled including their frontages and boundary treatments resulting in an architecturally varied street scene. Many properties within the street display prominent roof forms and dormer windows, and there is considerable variation in their configuration.

The appeal site comprises one such property set at an angle to and set back from the roadside behind a large frontage mainly laid over to hard surfacing with some semi mature perimeter planting. The southern end of [address], closest to the junction with [address], and in which the site lies has somewhat changed through the development of flatted developments and dwellings in the former rear gardens of houses resulting in a different character and a greater density compared to other parts of the road.

I have been made aware of the planning history of the site which includes planning permission for its redevelopment and the construction of a two-storey building accommodating nine apartments and two detached dwellings. Based on the available information the scheme before me would be similar to the previous permission save for an additional three apartments located within the roof space.

In my view the form of the roof space would be consistent with the scale and proportions of the ground and first floors of the apartment building. Whilst a number of dormer windows are proposed they would be set down from the ridge and set in from the sides and eaves leaving notable roof slope around them. The dormer windows would be modest in size and their position would not unacceptably dominate the roof or the overall appearance of the building.

The proposed apartment building would be sizeable occupying almost all of the entire frontage, however, this arrangement would not be that dissimilar to buildings either side. The proposed roof form and development, for that matter, would represent an appropriate addition within the street scene. Whilst it would be visible from within the area, the resultant building would not look out of context or incongruous when considering the varying design of properties, roof forms and dormer windows present in the local area. Despite representations saying otherwise the lift shaft would be discreetly positioned more or less centrally in the floorplate and would not protrude significantly above the ridge. For these reasons when viewed from the street it would not unduly draw the eye.

The communal bin store would be sited in one corner of the frontage. Irrespective of its size I am satisfied that the proposed bins within a timber enclosure, discreetly positioned and screened by the boundary treatment and planting would not appear as an unduly incongruous feature and would not unduly harm the character and appearance of the area.

I am mindful that planning permission has previously been granted for a similar layout albeit for fewer residences. In my view, the number of units and the layout would not result in a cramped development as there would be adequate spacing between the built form within the site, the site boundaries and nearby properties.

The density would be appropriate given the immediate context and having regard to the site layout, separation from neighbouring properties, soft landscaping, provision of amenity space as well as vehicle parking, I find that the proposed scheme would not represent an over-development of the site or that the number of units would undermine the area’s overall quality. Indeed, I consider that it would result in an efficient use of land in a well-established residential location in keeping with the character and appearance of its surroundings.

The multi occupational nature of the proposed development would likely result in more cars parked in front of the apartment building compared to individual dwellings. That said, during my site visit I observed a number of houses with multiple cars parked in front of them. This is not surprising given the character of the area whereby occupiers may well have several vehicles and as some dwellings could be occupied by multiple generations. Given the immediate context and the character of the area I am not persuaded that frontage parking would be unduly intensive so as to result in a detriment to the area’s character.

It is not unreasonable to assume that not all residents would have a car and given the different and separate comings and goings associated with occupiers’ independence and own daily routines could well mean that the frontage area is not fully occupied at any one time. Moreover, appropriate soft landscaping around the bin store, parking spaces and along the road would be provided and this combined with frontage planting and boundary treatment appropriate to the local context, secured by condition, would help to soften and in part screen vehicles parked in front of the building.

As such, the proposed development would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore accord with Policies CS10 and CS17 of the [name] (2011) and Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan (2015) which, amongst other things, require all new development to be well designed, and integrate with and enhance local character.

The site lies within the 400m – 5km [name] zone of influence. The SPA is a designated site formed of a network of heathland that provides a habitat for populations of three heathland species of birds. As such, it is recognised by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Regulations) as an area of international importance.

As the site is in proximity to the SPA, the conservation objectives of the habitat site may be undermined by a new residential population due to increased recreational pressure. Thus, it is necessary for me, as the competent authority for the purposes of the Regulations, to conduct an appropriate assessment in relation to the effect of the development upon the integrity of the SPA.

It is likely that the proposed development of 13 residential properties would contribute to further recreational pressures. The proposal would either alone or in combination with other residential development in the area, likely have a significant effect on the SPA due to the increased recreational pressure that would be placed on it. Mitigation is therefore required to ensure that such pressure is avoided or limited to such a degree that would preserve the integrity of the SPA.

Policy CS13 states that for developments within the zone of influence, mitigation measures will be delivered prior to occupation and in perpetuity. Measures will be based on a combination of access management, and the provision of Suitable Accessible Natural Greenspace.

The appellant is providing a financial contribution towards [name] and Monitoring (SAMM) measures in respect of the SPA. This would be secured through the submitted UU. The SAMM contribution would be based on local occupancy figures and I am satisfied that this obligation in the UU would meet the necessary tests.

As such, I am satisfied that the impact of the development as proposed could be mitigated through the SAMM measures secured in the UU and that a likely significant effect on the integrity of the [name] would not occur. Accordingly, the proposed development would accord with Policy CS13.

Local residents submit that the junction with [address] frequently backs up during the day. There is nothing before me to suggest that this level of traffic is particularly unusual and during the daily commute more traffic and longer journey times are to be expected. Whilst the proposed development would likely result in more vehicular movements, including visitors and deliveries, there is no substantive evidence to indicate that this would result in a severe impact upon the safe and efficient operation of the local highway network.

Whilst the proposal does not include visitor spaces the displacement of a small number of visitor vehicles onto [address] or surrounding roads is unlikely to lead to parking stress or unduly affect highway safety. Nor is there anything to suggest that delivery vehicles would not be able to enter the site, manoeuvre within it and exit in forward gear. There is nothing before me to indicate that the absence of disabled parking spaces conflicts with local parking requirements.

Notwithstanding the spacious nature of the area there is a degree of actual and perceived overlooking between properties, and such relationships are not uncommon even in leafy areas. Taking into account the separation between the built form and the height and position of the dormer windows I am satisfied that the scheme would not give rise to conditions that would unacceptably affect the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby properties in respect of overlooking.

Despite the representations received I have no reason to believe that the proposed communal amenity space would not be adequate to serve the development. Or that a statutory net gain in biodiversity would not be achieved. Based on the evidence before me it appears that the appellant has adequately demonstrated that the proposed development is unable to support a contribution towards affordable housing and is not a matter disputed by the Council.

A number of local residents have drawn my attention to a dismissed appeal1 at [address] which they contend is relevant. Based on the available information it is apparent that this scheme was for a development of two apartment blocks within the site. Whilst concerns were expressed by the Inspector in respect of character and appearance, they also did so in respect of the impact on trees and upon the 1 APP/K3605/W/25/3371813 living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Moreover, the extant permission on the appeal site represents a material fallback position that I must have regard to. As such, I am not persuaded that it is comparable to the scheme before me. In any event every application and appeal must be considered on its own merits, as I have done. This decision does not lead me to reach a different conclusion in respect of the appeal.

Comments have been made that the scheme could set a precedent for similar developments in the area. Every appeal must be considered on its own merits and there is no substantive evidence to indicate that the proposal would result in a precedent.

The alleged intentions and actions of the appellant in respect of affordable housing contributions is not a matter for me in assessment of this s78 appeal.

I have considered the suggested conditions in light of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance. In the interests of precision and clarity I have undertaken some rationalisation and rewording of the conditions suggested.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans as this provides certainty. Conditions relating to the external materials, hard and soft landscaping, external lighting and for tree retention and protection measures have been imposed to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development.

In the interests of the safe and efficient operation of the highway network conditions for laying out the cycle and vehicular parking and turning areas, visibility splays and for the closing of the existing access, have been imposed.

Conditions in respect of sustainable drainage and flood mitigation measures are considered necessary in the interests of sustainability. Conditions requiring ecological and biodiversity enhancements are also necessary to encourage wildlife on site.

To safeguard the living conditions of nearby occupiers conditions for certain windows to be fitted with obscure glazing and restricting the use of flat roof areas as amenity spaces have been imposed. In the event that any plant and machinery is to be fitted at the development a condition requiring submission of a noise assessment prior to installation has been imposed.

The Council has suggested removing permitted development rights for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse; additions to the roof of a dwellinghouse and other alterations to the roof of a dwellinghouse and buildings incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse falling within [name], B, C and E of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO).

Paragraph 55 of the Framework advises planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so. In the interests of maintaining a satisfactory appearance and adequate amenity space and living conditions for neighbouring occupiers I have determined that permitted development rights falling within Class A, B, C and E of the GPDO for the two dwellinghouses are to be removed.

Adequate information in respect of the cycle store is shown on the submitted plans and therefore a condition requiring further details is not necessary.

A separate condition for the development to be carried out in accordance with drawing number AAL-25-157-05 [name] in respect of construction traffic management is not necessary as this is one of the approved plans.

The Council has suggested conditions for submission of a scheme to prevent noise transition between flats and for electric vehicle and cycle charging points. Such matters would fall under different legislation i.e. Building Regulations and therefore it is not necessary to impose these conditions.

I have not been provided with any clear justification for the condition requiring submission of arboricultural site supervision and monitoring activities and as such it has not been imposed.

For the reasons set out above the appeal succeeds.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: AAL-24-137-P01 [name], Block Plan & Existing Location Plan; AAL-24-137-P02 [name] & Site Comparison Plans; AAL-24-137-P03 [name] 1 to 11 Plans & Elevations; AAL-24-137-P04 [name] & Elevations; AAL-24-137-P05 [name], Elevations & Garage; AAL- 24-137-P06 [address] Viewed from [address]; AAL-24-137-P08 [name] & [name]; AAL-24-137-P09 Site

No development, above ground level, shall commence until details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before any part of the development is first occupied in accordance with an agreed implementation programme.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a verification report, carried out by a qualified drainage engineer, demonstrating that the surface water drainage system has been constructed as per the agreed scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the cycle and vehicle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with drawing numbers AAL-24-137-P01 [name] and AAL-24-137-P08 [name]. Thereafter those spaces shall be retained for the parking of cycles and vehicles only.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the existing vehicular access on [address] has been permanently closed off and the kerb reinstated to the satisfaction of the local planning authority.

The apartment building hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the windows indicated on drawing number AAL-24-137-P03 have been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of those windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the recommendations set out in the ecology report by Ethos Environmental Planning (dated August 2025) have been carried out.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the SuDS and mitigation measures outlined in the [name], Building Warranty (September 2025) [name]; [name] 2831 100 [name] and [name] 2831 111Rev A have been carried out.

The ecological enhancements set out in the Ecological Enhancement Plan (dated 3 November 2025) shall be carried out prior to first occupation of the development and shall be retained as such thereafter for the lifetime of the development.

Before any plant and/or machinery is used on the development, it shall be installed in accordance with a noise assessment and scheme that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plant and/or machinery shall be installed in accordance with the approved scheme.

No external artificial lighting is to be installed other than in accordance with a scheme which has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.

No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until the scheme for the protection of the retained trees and the appropriate working methods have been carried out in accordance with the submitted [name] and Site Specific Arboricultural Method Statement. The scheme for the protection of the retained trees shall be carried out as approved.

No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or damaged in any manner within 5 years from the date of the occupation of the development, other than in accordance with the approved plans and details. In this condition "retained tree" means an existing tree which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars.

If any retained tree is cut down, uprooted or destroyed or dies another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species and shall be planted, at such time as may be specified in writing by the local planning authority.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of [name], B, C and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken at the dwellinghouses.

The flat roof areas of the development hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area.

The 2.4m by 45m visibility splays shown on plan number AAL-25-157-05 [name] shall be free of any obstruction exceeding 1.05m in height and shall be retained as such thereafter.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted External Finishes Schedule. END OF SCHEDULE