Appeal 6003921

The appeal is dismissed

The other appeals on the site regarding a garage (Ref: 6003924), [name] for an additional storey (Ref: 6003925) and a certificate of lawful development for an outbuilding (Ref: APP/K3605/X/26/3377488) are the subjects of separate decisions. I am the Inspector for the first two appeals and given that there are similarities in the matters, some of the language may be common to these decision letters.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on:  The character and appearance of the area  The living conditions of existing occupiers with particular regard to any overbearing effect to no 17  Biodiversity

The Barton is within the [name], which is characterised by large dwellings set in their own grounds. Many of the properties have been extended and redeveloped and planning permission for examples at no 12 and 15 The Barton and [address] have been drawn to my attention. There is variation in the detailed design of the properties including roof forms and ridge heights.

In the vicinity of the appeal site the properties are generally detached, two-storey houses with hipped and pitched roofs and a number of properties have accommodation in these roof slopes served by limited dormers. The domestic houses fronting The Barton are clearly separate from and different to the character of the larger school buildings at [name] located on [address]. Whilst there may be a limited number of mansard roofs on [address], these are uncommon and located on this larger through road away from the appeal site. As such the prevailing character is of generous two storey properties and which results in a consistent storey height. [name], although some development extends close to the boundaries, this is generally at ground floor only and as such there is an attractive openness between dwellings. Together this contributes to a sense of consistency with regard to height and a spacious pattern of development. These are important shared characteristics that make a notable positive contribution to the character of the area.

Collectively, the proposed extensions would create a large dwelling across the majority of the width of the plot. It would have a substantial steeply pitched mansard roof above the whole building including arched dormers serving the roof level accommodation. The property would also include an arched glazed entrance porch which extends from ground floor to roof level.

The proposed roof would be lower in height than the existing ridge. However, the fenestration and bulk of the mansard design means that the large scale of the roof form is clearly evident and appears as a third storey. Whilst the detailing of the mansard and porch reflect one another, the three storey height to the building is further emphasised by the striking and prominent detailing to the front porch extension. Additionally, although the proposed dwelling would be over a similar ground floor footprint to the existing building, the extended width of the building above ground floor would result in this full height extending close to the boundaries, less than the 1m recommended in the [name] (2024). This would undermine the voids between neighbouring properties. This would harmfully erode the consistent scale and spaciousness which are important characteristics of this area.

As such, the proposed development would appear unacceptably dominant in this context and would harmfully erode the pattern of development. It would not therefore be sympathetic to local character.

Mountleigh is towards the end of a private cul de sac and has mature planting to its front boundary which provides some screening. Nevertheless, the development would be visible in views through the entrance gates and from neighbouring properties. As such this harm would be experienced. Furthermore, this is significantly different from the conclusions relating to previous application for rear extensions (ref: 2009/2284 and 2009/2015), and as such they do not alter these

Therefore, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would be contrary to Policies CS10 and CS17 of the [name] (2011) (CS) and Policy DM2 of the Development Management Plan (2015) (DMP). Together these set criteria to achieve high quality design, including with regard to Cobham.

Cherrywood, 17 The Barton is a two storey dwelling located to the south east of no

The rear elevation of no 16 is set further back so its existing two storey side elevation runs alongside the rear garden of no 17, set back behind the single storey garage. There is a dense evergreen hedge between the two properties and I understand there is a window to a drawing room along the side elevation which would not achieve a 25 degree sight line above the proposed extensions.

The proposed development would extend three floors of development much closer to the boundary than the two storey bulk of the existing property. In addition, although partially over the footprint of the existing single storey garage, it would include a two storey solid wall for an extended length very close to the boundary with the neighbouring garden. The Council have not identified harm with regard to privacy or light and I have no reason to disagree with these findings. Nevertheless, taking into account the arrangement of the neighbouring buildings, for the reasons above the proposed height in this close proximity would be overbearing to these neighbouring occupiers.

Therefore the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of existing occupiers with particular regard to any overbearing effect to no 17. As such, it would be contrary to Policy DM2 of the DMP which, in part, seek to protect the amenity of adjoining occupiers.

The submitted arboricultural information identifies that four trees would be removed as a result of this development and these have not been surveyed as to their suitability for roosting bats. However, the tree constraints plan and tree protection plan relates to the construction of an outbuilding in the back garden and therefore I give very limited weight to its conclusions for this appeal. As such, I agree with the Council’s tree officer that the impact of the proposal to trees on site is limited. Consequently, it is unlikely that these four trees would be lost as a result of the scheme before me now and therefore there would be no harm to bats in this regard.

Consequently, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on biodiversity. As such it would not be contrary to Policies CS15 of the CS and Policy DM21 of the DMP. Together these seek to preserve, manage and if possible enhance biodiversity. Nevertheless, the lack of harm in this regard is a neutral matter.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.