Appeal 6004186

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of “a single-storey rear infill extension, incorporating one three roofs light to the side and four roof lights to the existing main roof—two positioned on the front roof slope and two on the rear, and modification to existing porch” at [site address] , Horsell, Woking, Surrey, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PLAN/2025/0667, subject to the following conditions: 1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: - 2505-24HM-1A, 2505-24HM-2A, 2505-24HM-3A, 2505-24HM-4A, 2505-24HM-5A, 2505-24HM-6A, 2505-24HM-7A, and 2505- 24HM-8A 3 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the occupiers of the neighbouring property (No.23 Horsell Moor) with particular regard to daylight and overbearing impact.

No.24 is a mid-terrace property of a traditional form with a two-storey outrigger and a single-storey projection beyond. The proposal would infill the space to the side of the outrigger, linking into the single-storey rear element, to create a cohesive wraparound with materials that match the existing property.

The proposed extension would extend along the shared boundary with No.23. The neighbouring property is of the same form (handed) with a ground-floor window in the rear elevation. The proposed extension would breach the 45-degree test, as set out in the Council’s Outlook, Amenity, Privacy and [name] (2022), from that window. This is, however, a tool to guide development, and the only reference in the SPD to extensions to existing dwellings is in relation to two-storey extensions which extend beyond at depth of 3m. While deeper, the proposed extension would not be substantially taller than the existing close-boarded fence to the boundary, and while no specific details are provided, I acknowledge that extensions up to 3m in height adjacent to a boundary can be added under permitted development rights.

The outlook and light to the room served by the rear window at No.23 will be to some extent restricted and dominated by that property's own two-storey outrigger to the other side. It is also noted that the other property in the terrace (No.25) has outriggers adjacent to both sides. The separation is similar, but in the case of the appeal proposal, the element added adjacent to No. 23 would be single-storey only with a mono-pitched roof.

The rear elevations of the properties are broadly southeast facing, with No.23 to the east of the appeal property. The nature of the properties is such that light reaching the rear window will likely already be limited in the early morning and late afternoon onwards due to the existing outrigger projections. Given the proximity, there would be an increase in the level of enclosure, although due to its single-storey form, the extension would not be of a scale to be overly oppressive or significantly affect the light.

For these reasons, I am satisfied that the proposed development would be unlikely to result in an unacceptably harmful loss of light or have an overbearing impact. Thus, the proposal would accord with Policy C21 of the [name] 2012 and the SPD as a whole, which, amongst other things, seek to ensure development avoids significant harmful impacts in terms of loss of daylight or sunlight, or an overbearing effect due to bulk, proximity, or outlook.

There would also be compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework in relation to design and amenity.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, in the interests of certainty, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. A condition is also necessary for the materials to match those used on the existing dwelling to maintain the character and appearance of the area.

The council has suggested a condition restricting additional openings in the side elevation. However, no openings are proposed to the side elevation, which is to the boundary, and as such, a condition is not necessary.

For the reasons set out, the appeal is allowed.