Appeal 6005270

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two semi-detached two-bedroom chalet style houses following demolition of existing two-story double garage and outbuildings at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/02437 subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appellant submitted late evidence in relation to the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR). The Council has had the opportunity to comment on the AMR and I am therefore satisfied that by taking this information into account in my decision, the main parties would not be prejudiced.

The main issues in respect of this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • The character and appearance of the area; and • The living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property (Beechdene).

The appeal site is located on the northern side of [site address] , within the central area of Bookham and the settlement boundary. It is uncharacteristically wide and comprises part of the curtilage of the residential property ‘Firsacre’ which is described as a chalet bungalow. The appeal site comprises a double garage and outbuilding and is set back from [site address] at a lower ground level. The appeal site has its own access point, with a separate access serving the host dwelling, Firsacre, although this is currently unused.

The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of detached, semi-detached and flatted development of single storey, chalet bungalow and two-storey height. The dwellings are set back from the road frontage.

The proposed development is for the subdivision of the curtilage of Firsacre and the demolition of the existing double garage and outbuilding and the creation of two individual plots to accommodate a pair of semi-detached dwellings over two floors with the remainder of the site serving Firsacre.

The existing plot is uncharacteristically wide, although the grain of development varies on the street scene. The subdivision of the plot for a pair of semi-detached dwellings and Firsacre would result in plot sizes for the semi-detached dwellings being narrower than those immediately surrounding the appeal site, but not uncharacteristically narrow when taking into account the wider character of the area, inclusive of the development at [address] to the north. Whilst this is not part of the same street scene, it does make up the grain of development within which the proposal would be set.

The proposed semi-detached dwellings would have shared space to the site frontage for parking, bin storage and access and this lack of subdivision to the front would give the appearance of a plot width commensurate with the neighbouring dwellings to the west when viewed from the road.

The site frontage currently comprises the main access drive for the host dwelling with hardstanding infront of the garage for parking. The bins are currently stored adjacent to the access gates, behind the hedgerow. One tree is proposed to be removed towards the front of the site, however, the tree is located away from the site frontage therefore does not constitute part of the existing boundary screening which is shown as being retained.

The proposed development would have hardstanding to the front for parking (as existing) as well as bin stores and would retain the majority of the existing boundary screening. The appellant has noted there would be a reduction in hardstanding on the site frontage compared to the existing and this is not disputed by the Council. Whilst there may be limited opportunities for additional landscaping to the front, I do not consider this to be necessary to make the development acceptable as the use of the site for parking and bin storage would not alter from the existing.

The separation distance to the side boundaries would be comparable with neighbouring dwellings, when taking into account all built development. The boundary screening on the property frontages along [site address] also obscures direct views of the dwellings therefore any variation in plot widths and distances between dwellings is not detectable.

There is disagreement between the main parties over the description of the semi-detached dwellings, whether they are chalet bungalows, chalet houses or two-storey dwellings. However, the height of the proposed development would be marginally lower than Firsacre, but taller than the bungalow to the west. It is acknowledged that the proposal would sit amongst dwellings either chalet style with rooms appearing in the roof or single storey, however, there are two-storey dwellings further to the east and west and the actual height of the proposed development would be commensurate with the surrounding development.

The appellant has provided evidence of the density of development in the surrounding area demonstrating the density is comparable to modern sites within close proximity and this has not been disputed by the Council. In light of this and the lack of subdivision to the plot frontage, I do not consider the proposal would appear cramped within the street scene.

In conclusion, the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area and would accord with policy EN4 of the Mole Valley Local Plan (MVLP) and policies BKEN1 and BKH2 of the Bookham Neighbourhood Development Plan which seek to ensure all development is of high quality design that makes a positive contribution to its local character, responding to the prevailing pattern of development.

The proposed development would be of a similar depth as Beechdene (although it is noted Beechdene is single storey) and the north and south elevations would align. The appellant has stated the separation distance between the dwellings would be a minimum of 3.874 metres and this figure is not disputed by the Council. Although the proposal would be 6.975 metres in height, the dwellings have been designed with the roof hipped in from the sides, away from the neighbouring property, reducing the scale of the proposal when viewed from Beechdene. The hipped roof design and separation distance is considered sufficient to ensure the proposed development would not appear overbearing from the neighbouring property.

The submitted Daylight and Sunlight assessment assess the development in respect of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing matters, having regard to industry standard guidance and concludes the proposal would comply with BRE guidance in relation to the impacts on neighbouring daylight and sunlight amenity and the Council has not offered any evidence to the contrary.

In conclusion, the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Beechdene and would comply with policy EN4 of the (MVLP) which seeks to ensure the amenity of residents occupying properties in the surrounding area is not significantly affected.

My attention has been drawn to the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the property to the north. I am satisfied that the proposed separation distance between the proposal and the property to the north would not result in significant harm to the living conditions of the occupants of this property.

The site lies within flood zone 1 and I have not been provided with substantive evidence the proposal would cause surface water flooding.

I note the site lies within 1.5 kilometres of the [name] to Reigate Escarpment Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The application is supported by an [name]. Surrey Wildlife Trust consider the potential for [name] to be active on the application is at an acceptably low level. On this basis I have no reason to take a different view and I am satisfied that there is no likely significant effect on the European site alone or in combination with other plans or projects. An Appropriate Assessment is therefore not required.

I have had regard to the list of suggested conditions provided by the Council and have considered these in light of the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance.

In the interests of certainty I have imposed conditions relating to the time frame for the commencement of development, plans and for the submission and samples of external materials and details relating to refuse and recycling storage.

I have imposed pre-commencement planning conditions to require the submission of details pertaining to boundary treatments, for a site walkover to take place to assess the site for active fox earths and for the submission of an Ecological Enhancement Plan. These will ensure an acceptable appearance is achieved in the interest of the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings and to safeguard the ecological interest of the site. In accordance with the regulations1 the appellant has been consulted on the wording of these conditions and has provided their written agreement.

In the interests of highway safety, I have imposed conditions requiring the vehicle parking to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans and maintained for their designated purpose and for [name] charging points and cycle facilities to be provided in accordance with schemes to be submitted and approved.

Due to the provisions of Schedule 7 of the 1990 Act and as none of the statutory exemptions apply in this case, the development may not be begun unless a biodiversity gain plan has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

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 nos AAL-25-184-P01, AAL-25-184-PO2, AAL-25-184-P03, AAL-25- 184-PO4 and Tree Protection Plan.

No development above ground level shall take place until details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Details of refuse and recycling storage shall be provided as part of the development, in accordance with detailed drawings to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected/retained. The boundary treatment shall be completed before the occupation of the development hereby permitted, shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and thereafter permanently retained as such.

Prior to commencement, a site walkover is required to be undertaken by a suitably experienced ecologist to assess whether active fox earths are present onsite. If active fox earths are recorded, a suitably experienced ecologist will be required to oversee the sensitive destruction of these earths.

Prior to commencement an Ecological Enhancement Plan detailing how the development will deliver ecological enhancements is to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Ecological Enhancement Plan should be based on impact avoidance, mitigation and enhancement measures specified in the final ecological report and should include, but not be limited to the following: a) Description and evaluation of features to be provided b) Location plan of all ecological enhancement features being provided c) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management d) Prescriptions for management actions e) Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures f) Consideration for hedgehog

The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and until space has been laid out within the site in general accordance with the approved plan [name]. AAL-25-184-P01, for vehicles to be parked and for vehicles to turn so that they may enter and leave the site in forward gear. Thereafter the parking and turning areas shall be retained and maintained for their designated purposes.

The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and until the proposed dwellings are provided each with a fast-charge [name] charging point (current minimum requirements - 7 kw Mode 3 with Type 2 connector - 230v AC 32 Amp single phase dedicated supply) in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter retained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

The development hereby approved shall not be first occupied unless and until the following cycle facilities have been provided within the development site for each dwelling: (i) High quality, secure, lit and covered cycle parking; (ii) Charging point with timer for e-bikes within said facilities; To be in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the said approved facilities shall be provided, retained and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.