Appeal 6004503

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the appeal was lodged the Spelthorne Local Plan 2024-2039/40, March 2026 (“the SLP”) has been adopted. It replaced the Spelthorne Borough Council Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document 2009, and the policies listed on the decision notice. The Spelthorne Design Code November 2025 (“the SDC”) was adopted by the Council at the same time. [name] of the SDC is substantially the same as the [name] of [name] and New Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document 2011. In the interests of fairness, the main parties have been given an opportunity to comment on the relevance of the SLP and the SDC to their respective cases. Therefore, I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by me taking account of the SLP and SDC in the determination of this appeal.

The main issues in this appeal are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. • Whether satisfactory living conditions would be provided for the future occupants of the proposed development with particular regard to outdoor amenity space. • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupants of Number [address] with particular regard to outlook, privacy and access to light. • Whether vehicle parking provision would be satisfactory and the effect of the proposed development on highway safety.

The appeal relates to a 3-storey building fronting the [address] within Shepperton Town Centre and occupying a corner plot at the junction with [address]. Commercial units occupy the ground floor of the building with residential units on the upper floors. There is a car park at the rear. The building has a plain appearance, indicative of its early 1960s origins, with a simple geometric form and long rows of windows. There are similar style buildings on the opposite side of the [address] which has a strongly commercial character. It is described by the SDC as a thriving centre.

Relatively tall buildings of varying designs front the section of [address] that extends northwards from the appeal site. They create a strong sense of enclosure to the wide street, usually extending across 3 storeys, with ground floor commercial units with shop-style fronts. The scale of the appeal building and its mixture of uses is consistent with the character and appearance of the [address]. The rows of bungalows and houses along [address] contribute to a suburban character that is markedly different to the commercial character of the [address] and the buildings that front onto it. The sharply defined transition between those contrasting character areas is clearly appreciable in the vicinity of the appeal site where those roads join.

Through the addition of a proposed fourth storey, the height of the appeal building would be much taller than the single storey building to its south. However, it would be broadly comparable with the heights of the existing buildings in the row that front onto the section of [address] to its north. There would be a gentle transition of building heights between it and the ridgeline of the pitched roofed building fronting the [address] on the opposite side of the [address] junction.

The extent to which the top storey is recessed from the lower floors would break up the massing of the appeal building. In street level views from the [address], it would largely retain the appearance of its lower 3 storeys as the principal core, thus giving its built form a logical hierarchy. The use of different materials and finishes, particularly to differentiate the middle storeys of the building from those above and below, would further serve to break up its massing.

[name] 1-12 [name] on the opposite side of [address], the proposed recessed top floor to the appeal building would appear as a generally subordinate addition. It would not dominate the main 2 storey core of the host building or the buildings in the wider area. There would also be alterations to the elevations of the building, including a coherently arranged pattern of window openings of varied sizes with detailing around most apertures. Together with the use of varying materials and surface finishes, the proposed development would give the building a more interesting and enlivened appearance.

In views from [address] to the west, the additional height, bulk and massing of the building would be absorbed into the row of large buildings fronting the [address]. In those views, the scale, form and appearance of the proposed development would relate entirely to the character and appearance of the [address]. It would reflect the differences between those character areas and would not be harmful to the [address] street scene.

The proposal accords with the SDC’s guidance for the [address] area, insofar as it states that building heights should be a maximum of 5 storeys or 15 metres high, with a vertical mix of buildings and retaining commercial frontages. Despite concerns over the density of the development, I have not been referred to any limits on density. I have determined the appeal on the SDC’s principle that the appropriate density for a site will be design-led and therefore contextual in nature.

Taking all the above into account, the proposed development would represent a modest enhancement to the character and appearance of the area when compared to the existing building. It would preserve the village charm of Shepperton in accordance with the [name] and Principles for Change.

For those reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host building and area. Therefore, it would be consistent with SLP Policy PS2 insofar as it requires development to respect the street scene and the character of the area in which it is situated, including having due regard to the scale, height, proportions and other characteristics of adjoining buildings and land, and the principles in the SDC. For those same reasons the proposed development would accord with paragraph 135.c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) insofar as decisions should ensure developments are sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment.

The large flat roof above the ground-floor commercial units is accessible to occupants of the existing flats and provides pedestrian access to their homes via an external staircase. The surface of the flat roof is finished with stone chippings for the most part. However, a relatively wide area extending from the staircase and running alongside the external walls of the flats, where the entrance doors are located, is surfaced with paving slabs, creating an outdoor hardstanding immediately adjacent to the flats.

The appellant states that this outdoor area is not demised to any flat, nor is it designated or designed as an amenity area. However, it is confirmed that the occupants of the existing flats have access to it. There was no physical barrier to prevent such access and there is nothing before me to show that its use is prohibited. The Council describes how the flat roofed area appeared to be available for use as an outdoor amenity space and it has submitted photographs from a site visit showing a table and chairs on the hard surfaced area, together with some plant pots and laundry being dried.

At the time of my site visit, a table and chairs were present next to one of the flats on the hard surfaced roof area, as were plant pots. The amount and spread of domestic paraphernalia across that area was not extensive at the time of my visit. However, it indicates that the area is available for occupants of the existing flats to use as an outdoor amenity space, such as for relaxation and some domestic activities such as drying laundry. I am also mindful that my visit can only be a snapshot in time. It would be reasonable to suppose that occupants of the flats would be more likely to use the outdoor space during better weather, and at times when they are less likely to be working, such as weekends.

On the balance of the evidence before me it is my judgement that the hard surfaced areas above the flat roof and adjacent to the flats is an outdoor amenity space available to occupants. Given its close and convenient relationship with the entrances and windows to the flats, and the level of surveillance from them, it is likely to be a valuable space. The remainder of the outdoor space appears unlikely to be well used as it is further away from the flats and covered by loose chippings, with accumulations of moss. However, its openness provides a spacious setting to the hard surfaced amenity space, making it more attractive for use by occupants of the existing flats.

[name] of the SDC states that minimum private garden areas are to be maintained, including for new and converted flats. The main parties agree that there would be a shortfall in the provision of outdoor amenity space against the standards in the SDC. The standard for new flats, including those provided through conversion, is for [address] metres of outdoor amenity space per unit. Where amenity space is to be shared, the standard will be relaxed to 35 sqm per unit for the first 5 units, 10 sqm for the next 5 units and 5 sqm for each unit thereafter. Usable balcony floorspace may be counted in this provision.

The SDC is a Supplementary Planning Document and does not have the full force of development plan policy. In my view it is important not to apply the quantitative standards over-rigidly, not least because each development and its context are likely to be different. The Inspector reached a similar view in appeal APP/Z3635/D/25/3366506. I have therefore treated its standards as guidelines that indicate the potential for adverse effects that require further consideration based on site and development specific considerations and judgements.

As proposed, the 2-bed flats 12 -14 would have sizeable private balconies. The 1- bed first and second floor flats 6 - 7 and 10 – 11 would have more modestly sized balconies. The sizes of those private outdoor amenity spaces would be satisfactory given the occupancy levels of those flats. They would be sufficient to establish a conveniently accessible and usable sitting out space for relaxation. Despite the amount of outdoor amenity space for the development falling short of the standards in the SDC, those private outdoor spaces would contribute to providing satisfactory living conditions for the future occupants of those flats.

Seven of the proposed flats (numbers 1 - 5, 8 and 9) would share the proposed communal roof garden. There would be significant differences between the quantity, quality and usability of that communal roof garden when compared to the existing outdoor amenity space for occupants of the existing flats. Taking those 7 flats in isolation, the size of the proposed communal roof garden would fall below the standard in the SDC.

Compared to the expected occupancy levels of those flats, which consist of 4 x 2 bed and 3 x 1 bed units, it has not been shown that the size of the proposed communal roof garden would be sufficient to comfortably accommodate the occupants of those flats at the same time. Those occupants would expect to use the communal roof garden for sitting out with tables and chairs, particularly during better weather conditions and at weekends and evenings when occupants are least likely to be working. In that scenario, it is my judgement that the roof garden would be a cramped and crowded space.

Given the size of the space, those conditions would likely dissuade a number of residents from seeking to use it, thus depriving them of useable and comfortable outdoor amenity space in a location close to their homes. It would likely function on a first come, first served basis, with only a modest number of occupants from those flats being able to comfortably use the space at any one time.

In terms of the quality of the space, there is little to show that it would be furnished. Compared to the outdoor amenity space serving the existing 6 flats, it appears that residents would need to bring their own furniture to and from their flats. This would be inconvenient to the occupants of those proposed flats, despite the internal staircase and lift facility. There would also appear to be limited surveillance of the roof garden, and it seems unlikely that residents of the proposed flats would wish to leave their own furniture on the roof garden. Even if they did, it would likely clutter up the space, adversely affecting its capacity and usability for other residents.

For those reasons, the communal roof garden would be a cramped and unattractive outdoor amenity space for future occupants of those flats, thus providing them with poor quality living conditions. Apart from flat 4, those flats would have Juliet balconies, which could be opened to give occupants a sense of the outdoor environment. However, the Juliet balconies would not create outdoor spaces independent from the indoor environment, being more akin to large opening windows. As such, they would not function in the same way as outdoor amenity space and they would not overcome the harm identified.

The appellant’s evidence identifies the locations of public open spaces in the area and the journey times to reach them. They refer to a diverse range of parks, playing fields, and nature reserves as being accessible by walking. This includes Manor Park, at the southern end of the [address], which appears to be a large area of grass covered public open space. However, those spaces are not so close to the appeal site as to be conveniently located for use by the occupants of those 7 flats, nor would they provide a private or semi-private outdoor amenity space.

There is a range of local amenities in Shepperton town centre including cafes and other food and drink establishments that occupants of those 7 flats could use for socialising and relaxation. Bench seating is available along the [address] and close to the appeal site. However, using local businesses would incur a cost and is also likely to be time limited and restricted by opening hours. Bench seating in a busy town centre and close to passing pedestrians and traffic would be very different in nature to the provision of satisfactorily sized and semi-private outdoor amenity space at the appeal site.

Taken as a whole, the quantity and quality of the shared outdoor amenity space for flats 1 - 5, 8 and 9 would provide poor quality living conditions for future occupants of those flats, contrary to SLP Policy PS2 insofar as it requires a high standard in the design and layout of new development. For those same reasons the proposal would be contrary to paragraph 135.f) of the Framework insofar as decisions should ensure developments create places which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for future users. Living conditions of occupants of Number [address].

I have focussed on the effects of the development on the outlook and privacy of the occupants of Number [address], as that is the property identified in the Council’s appeal statement. The relatively wide kitchen window in the flank wall of Number 13 faces the appeal site. Compared to the other windows in that flank wall, which are obscure glazed, the kitchen window is fitted with clear glazing. It provides occupants with views towards the appeal site and a timber fence that extends along the inside of the boundary wall to the appeal site’s car park, a short distance away from the kitchen window. The lower half of the kitchen window is more or less directly opposite the fence, which restricts the occupants outlook from their kitchen. The appeal building would be visible above the fence.

By building above the ground floor commercial units, the upper floors of the extension would be separated from the flank wall of Number 13 by around 18 metres. This would fall short of the SDC’s minimum back-to-side distance of 21 metres for three storey development. The SDC states that the back-to-side separation distances seek to avoid overlooking, preserve privacy and outlook. As the kitchen window in the flank wall of Number 13 serves a habitable room, several interested parties say the minimum back-to-side distance of 30 metres should apply in accordance with the SDC.

The separation distances within the SDC are indicators that the effects of a development on the living conditions of occupants of nearby properties require careful consideration. In the case before me, the appeal scheme would create a 4- storey building. The SDC appears to be silent on separation distances between such buildings, thus requiring me to exercise planning judgement based on site specific factors.

In views out of their kitchen window and over the timber boundary fence, the increased bulk and massing of the appeal building would be visible to the occupants of Number 13. However, in the context of their existing outlook, it is my judgement that the parts of the built form of the proposed development visible from the kitchen would not be so close that it would have an oppressively dominant or overbearing effect on the occupants’ outlook. The proposed development would hardly be visible, if at all, in views out of the front and rear windows in Number 13.

I am satisfied that the relatively tall single storey rear wing of Number 13 would substantially screen views of the proposed extension from the area of garden closest to the main rear wall of the house. This is likely to be a highly valued area of outdoor amenity space given its close relationship with the house. Whilst the proposed development would be visible from the remainder of the long garden of Number 13, it would not have an overbearing effect on the occupants due to the distances of separation.

The SDC states that the position of windows in new development should be carefully considered to avoid views into the windows of adjoining properties or onto patios or garden areas immediately to their rear. The proposed extension would result in several windows and balconies/roof gardens facing Number 13, at closer distances than is currently the case. However, when compared to the baseline conditions at the appeal site, including the level of overlooking that currently exists from upper floor windows in the existing building, the effects of the proposed development would not harm the privacy of the occupants of Number 13 when using their kitchen.

The built form of the single storey rear wing of Number 13 would be expected to screen the garden area immediately to the rear of its wall from being seen in views from the proposed flats. The viewing distances between the flats and the remainder of the long rear garden of Number 13, and beyond its single storey rear wing, would be sufficient to avoid harm to the privacy of its occupants.

A representation from the occupier of Number 13 indicates that they commissioned a technical report to assess the effects of the proposed development on daylight reaching the kitchen. However, that report is not before me and I have determined this appeal on the evidence that is before me, including my experiences at my site visit.

The SDC refers to a number of measures from a Building Research Establishment (BRE) report which are relevant indicators in determining whether adequate light levels into habitable rooms would be maintained. The SDC seeks to avoid new buildings and extensions causing excessive overshadowing of nearby properties and a significant loss of sunlight.

The BRE 25-degree guide in the SDC is not directly applicable as the appeal development would not be located to the front or rear of Number 13. Nonetheless, the appellant has shown that a line drawn at approximately 28 degrees from the kitchen window of Number 13 would be more or less clear of the built form of the proposed development. There is nothing before me to show that the proposed extension would break a 45-degree indicator line drawn in accordance with SDC paragraph 3.22.

In having regard to the evidence before me and my observations at my site visit, it is my judgement that the distance of separation between the proposed extension and the side wall of Number 13 would be sufficient to avoid daylight in the kitchen being reduced to levels harmful to the living conditions of occupants.

The relationship between the scale of the extension and the position of the sun as it moves through the sky would be expected to reduce sunlight reaching the kitchen of Number 13 during the morning. However, as the extension would be positioned to the east of that kitchen window, any overshadowing would persist for only a short part of the day and would not harm the living conditions of the occupants.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not be harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of Number [address] with particular regard to outlook, privacy, and access to light. It would therefore comply with SLP Policy PS2 insofar as it requires development to demonstrate a satisfactory relationship to adjoining properties avoiding adverse and un-neighbourly impacts in terms of loss of privacy, daylight or sunlight, or overbearing effect due to bulk and proximity or outlook. For those same reasons the proposed development would accord with paragraph 135.f) of the Framework insofar as decisions should ensure developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing users.

SLP Policy ID2, requires development proposals to incorporate opportunities to facilitate sustainable and active modes of travel, achieved by, amongst others, the provision of vehicle parking standards and secure, accessible and convenient on-site cycle parking.

The proposed vehicle parking provision within the existing car park would fall some way short of the Spelthorne Borough Council Parking Standards, Supplementary Planning Guidance (“the SPG”), updated September 2011, and Surrey County Council’s vehicular, electric vehicle and cycle parking guidance for new developments. However, Footnote 74 of the SLP, establishes the basis for reducing parking requirements, taking account of criteria including a development’s proximity to public transport nodes and the frequency and quality of the public transport services. It largely replicates the criteria in the SPG for reductions in parking standards in town centre locations, including Shepperton.

Shepperton railway station is a short walk away from the appeal site and bus stops are closer still. The appellant’s [name] (TS) shows a frequent train service to [name], including other regional stations along the route. Frequent bus services operate to locations including Staines, Ashford, Walton and Kingston. Services and facilities that are likely to be used frequently by future occupants are within convenient walking and cycling distances of the appeal site.

Whilst there is nothing to stop citizens from owning cars and parking them on the public highway, not owning a car would be a realistic option for future residents of the proposed development, given the opportunities available to prioritise travel by sustainable transport modes. This is likely to reduce levels of car ownership and the demand for car parking.

Unlike the [address], where parking was restricted, there appeared to be no such restrictions along [address], where very few spaces were available. Even if the cars of future occupiers of the appeal development or their visitors were parked on the road, there should be no additional risk to highway safety over and above what exists now. It cannot be assumed that cars would be parked dangerously around junctions or near to the school or in contravention of the parking restrictions on the [address]. There are actions that can be taken outside of the planning process by the relevant authorities to address parking in restricted areas. As most homes along [address] have off-street parking spaces, it is unlikely that any parked cars associated with the proposed development would detrimentally affect the ability of residents to park at their homes. No substantive evidence has been advanced to the contrary.

The TS estimates that the additional vehicle movements in the AM and PM peak hours would not be discernible amongst daily fluctuations in traffic on the surrounding roads. Vehicle speeds and traffic flows near to the appeal site’s access appeared to be modest at the time of my visit. Whilst only a snapshot in time there is nothing of substance to indicate that use of the access and car park, in its proposed modified form, would be harmful to the safety of road users or pedestrians. Therefore, I see no reason to disagree with the conclusion reached by the TS that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, and the residual cumulative traffic impact would not be severe. No substantiated evidence has been advanced to the contrary and the Local Highways Authority raised no objection to the proposal.

For those reasons, the proposed level of vehicle and cycle parking provision would be satisfactory and would not harm highway safety or the operation of the road network. Therefore, it would comply with SLP Policy ID2 the requirements of which are set out above. It would also be consistent with Framework paragraphs 115-117 insofar as development should ensure that sustainable transport modes are prioritised and safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users.

The location of the proposed development would closely align with SLP Policy SP2 and the development strategy for Shepperton, insofar as it seeks opportunities to maximise the efficient use of land to meet housing needs by raising densities, particularly around public transport interchanges.

Compared to the existing building it would enhance the appearance of the [address] by a modest degree. The appeal scheme would deliver an additional 8 smaller housing units that are likely to be more affordable than larger ones. It would be consistent with SLP Policy H1 insofar as it would contribute to the delivery of a wide choice of homes. Construction and occupation of the proposed development would deliver economic benefits, including future occupiers spending money in the local area. The proposal has attracted some local support on those grounds.

Environmental benefits would be delivered through using energy resources efficiently, installing chargers to encourage zero and low emission vehicle use, devices to generate renewable energy, and biodiversity enhancements. Compared to the external staircase to the existing flats, the internal staircase and lift would improve accessibility, particularly for those with impaired mobility.

However, the provision of poor quality living conditions for the future occupants of flats 1 - 5, 8 and 9, would be detrimental to their health and well-being, contrary to the objective of achieving a high quality design. This is an important matter that brings the proposal into conflict with [name] PS2 and SP2, which require development to achieve a high quality of design. The conflict with those policies brings the proposal into conflict with the development plan as a whole. The benefits of the proposal, whilst carrying weight of a high order in its favour, would be insufficient to outweigh its adverse effects on the living conditions of those future occupants, and is determinative in this instance.

Due to its [name] result the Council has advised that the Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply. In that context, paragraph 11.d)ii. of the Framework is relevant and planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, including specific key policies.

There is no reason why the proposed development could not be built out quickly to make a positive contribution to housing delivery, and deliver the economic, social and environmental benefits that the Framework seeks through the planning system. It would contribute positively to the availability, mix and choice of housing, including smaller units likely to be more affordable. Economic and environmental benefits would be delivered through construction and occupation of the development, and through the fitting of renewable energy generating devices, energy efficiency measures, and biodiversity enhancements.

The proposal would broadly accord with the Framework’s support in paragraphs 125 and 129 for making efficient use of land, including using the airspace above the existing building to deliver new homes and increase densities. It would do so in a location where the availability of services and facilities would minimise the need for occupants to travel, and where sustainable modes can be prioritised for necessary travel. Safe access to the development would be achieved for all users.

The Framework states that decisions should give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes and other identified needs. However, the provision of poor quality living conditions for the future occupants of flats 1 - 5, 8 and 9, would be contrary to Framework paragraph 135, which requires decisions to create places which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for future users. This carries substantial weight against the development. Notwithstanding the proposal’s modest enhancement to the appearance of the [address], the proposed development would not be well-designed when taken as a whole. Framework paragraph 131 states that the achievement of good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, and paragraph 139 is clear that development not well-designed should be refused.

The provision of poor quality living conditions for the future occupants of flats 1 - 5, 8 and 9, is therefore determinative in this instance. Consequently, the adverse impacts of granting the development planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, including those specific key policies. Therefore, the proposal would not be the sustainable development for which the Framework indicates a presumption in favour.

The concerns raised by interested parties are largely addressed in the Council’s delegated report. Where not addressed in this decision, it is unnecessary for me to reach a finding on those concerns due to my overall conclusion that the appeal proposal would be unacceptable. In any case, an absence of harm in respect of those objections would not have weighed positively in favour of the appeal proposal or altered the outcome of the appeal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole. This is determinative in this instance, and it carries substantial weight against the appeal proposal, sufficient to outweigh its benefits. The material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal should be dismissed.