Appeal 6004797

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for second storey rear and side extensions over existing single storey elements plus associated internal alteration at [site address] , [site address] , Surrey, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/798, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2025-052/01 [name]; 2025-052/02 [name]; 2025- 052/05 [name]; 2025-052/06 [name].

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 proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular reference to privacy.

The appeal concerns a detached chalet style dwelling located in a road comprising a mix of bungalows, chalets and two storey dwellings. The proposal is for first floor side and rear extensions although the Council’s concerns only relate to the proposed side extension on the western side of the dwelling.

At my site visit I was able to view the proposed development from the appeal property and from the rear garden of the adjacent dwelling, [address].

The proposed side extension would be above part of the ground floor footprint of the dwelling, with the main bulk of the extension set in from the boundary with the adjacent dwelling. The roof pitch would follow the alignment of the existing dummy pitch roof and would meet with the ridge of the host dwelling. Two dormer windows are proposed on the front elevation whilst to the rear, a window is proposed within the new gable.

The dwelling to the west, [address], is a two storey detached dwelling set within a large plot. It has a large, raised patio to the rear which is separated from the boundary with the appeal site by a gravelled area. Further into the garden, there are various paths and paved features and there is also an additional circular seating area close to the boundary with the appeal property which is partially enclosed by a low wall.

The rear boundary between the appeal property and [address] is formed by high fencing panels closer to the rear elevation of the dwellings, beyond which is a high hedge. Partly because of the splayed nature of the boundary between No 6 and the appeal property, views into the garden of No 6 are obtainable from the existing first floor bedroom window on the rear gable of the appeal property. Views of the raised patio immediately to the rear of No 6 are not possible but other parts of the garden of No 6 are within the existing line of sight, including most of the circular seating area deeper into the garden. An existing willow tree filters more longer distant views which would otherwise be available.

The proposed window on the rear elevation of the side extension would be set in from the side boundary, but wider views would inevitably be obtainable into the garden of [address], in part due to the alignment of the boundary. However, views over the raised patio immediately to the rear of No 6 would not be easily obtainable due to the acute angle of vision. This area would therefore remain largely private, as currently is the case.

Views of the circular seating area deeper into the garden would be possible, however I observed that this area along with the adjacent part of the garden is already visible from the existing bedroom window from a broadly similar distance. Whilst more of the garden of [address] would be visible from the new window, other parts of the large garden would remain relatively private. Some mutual overlooking is to be expected within a settlement area and indeed I noted at my site visit that a balcony on the rear of [address] is already likely to lead to some overlooking of adjacent gardens, including No 6 and the appeal property. Having regard to the situation that already exists, I conclude that the proposal would not have a significant impact on the privacy of the adjoining occupants.

Other aspects of the proposal including the rear extension were found to be acceptable to the Council. Both extensions are well designed and would be in keeping with the design and appearance of the host dwelling. I therefore have no reason to disagree with the Council’s assessment of the proposal in this regard.

In conclusion, the proposal would not have a significant harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with reference to privacy. It would accord with Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy (adopted 15 October 2008) and Policy DP7 of the Tandridge District Local Plan Part 2: [name] 2014 – 2029 (adopted July 2014). These policies (amongst other things) state that development must not significantly harm the amenities and privacy of occupiers of neighbouring properties (including their private amenity space) by reason of overlooking or its overshadowing or overbearing effect. It would also comply with paragraph 135 (f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

In addition to the standard implementation condition, the approved plans condition is imposed for certainty and a condition controlling the use of materials is necessary to protect the character and appearance of the dwelling and the local area.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.