Appeal 6006004

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; • the living conditions of the occupants of 1 Fairlawn and [address], with particular reference to outlook and daylight; and • protected species, specifically bats.

The appeal property is a detached bungalow set back a generous distance from the street. The dwelling is located in the north-east side of the site which adjoins a small cul-de-sac called Fairlawn.

The character of the surrounding area is primarily residential. The part of [site address] Street in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site is predominantly characterised by two-storey dwellings, some of which are dormer bungalows. The majority of the dwellings in Fairlawn are detached bungalows, with several two-storey detached dwellings with dormer windows at first-floor level. The roof form of dwellings in the surrounding area largely consists of pitched roofs with hipped or gable ends, with some examples of dormer windows.

Some of the distinguishing features of both [site address] Street in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, and Fairlawn, are that the dwellings are set back a substantial distance from the street, and the generous gaps between the first-floor elevations of the dwellings and the boundaries of their plots. These combine to give the area a spacious feel. The appeal property contributes towards this character through the set back from [site address] Street and the distances from the boundary of the site.

The Mole Valley Design Guidance for [name] and Outbuildings Supplementary Planning Document (2025) does not have the weight of policy, but provides guidance. It explains that the size of extensions should not be excessive in relation to the existing house, extensions which detract from the overall shape and style of the original building will not normally be acceptable, and two-storey flat roofs will not normally be acceptable either, especially where they may be seen by the general public.

The proposed development would significantly increase the size and massing of the existing building and would include a substantial area of flat roof at first-floor level, which would detract from the overall shape and style of the existing dwelling. The proposed roof design including the large area of flat roof, would be unduly prominent from both [site address] Street and Fairlawn, would be out of keeping with the predominant roof form in the surrounding area and harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal, including the two-storey rear extension, would be located close to the boundary with Fairlawn, which consists of close board fencing with some intermittent vegetation. The proposed development would be visible both above this fence and vegetation, and through gaps within the vegetation. The proposal, by reason of its scale and massing and location close to the boundary with Fairlawn, would appear cramped and out of keeping with the prevailing spacious character of the surrounding area.

The proposed extension would use materials to match those used on the existing dwelling and would be in keeping with the varied palette of materials used in the surrounding area. However, this does not outweigh my concerns regarding the effect of the development on character and appearance.

I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. As such, it would conflict with Policy EN4 of the Mole Valley Local Plan (2024). This policy seeks, amongst other things, that development is of high-quality design, respects the scale and character of the existing and surrounding buildings, and makes a positive contribution to local character. It would conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) paragraph 135 where it seeks to ensure that new development is sympathetic to local character.

1 Fairlawn is a detached two-storey dwelling which is located north of the appeal site and has windows serving habitable rooms on the east elevation. The proposed development, including the two-storey extension, would be located significantly forward of the east elevation of this neighbouring property, and in close proximity to the common boundary. The proposal would result in a significant increase in the size and massing of the existing building in close proximity to 1 Fairlawn, which given its forward siting of this neighbouring property, would result in an unacceptable loss of daylight and outlook to the occupants, both from the windows on the east elevation closest to the common boundary, and from the garden.

[address] is a detached two-storey dwelling located south of the appeal site. The proposed first-floor would be located slightly beyond the rear elevation of this neighbouring property, however given that the dwellings are orientated at oblique angles to each other, and the reasonable separation distances between them, the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of daylight or outlook to the occupants of this neighbouring property.

The appellant asserts that assessment of daylight and outlook effects should be supported by objective analysis, such as reference to Building Research Establishment guidelines and 3D section drawings. There is no evidence before me to indicate that such technical assessments are mandated by policy or guidance. I have assessed the proposal based on the evidence before me and my site visit observations.

The appellant contends that the effects on living conditions are within the range of effects normally expected in a suburban residential environment. I acknowledge that certain effects are expected in this type of environment, however for the reasons given above, the proposal would result in an unacceptable loss of daylight and outlook to the occupants of 1 Fairlawn.

I conclude that the proposed development would result in significant harm to the living conditions of the occupants of no 1 Fairlawn, through its adverse effect on daylight and outlook. As such, it would conflict with Policy EN4 of the Mole Valley Local Plan (2024). This policy seeks, amongst other things, to ensure that the amenity of residents occupying properties in the surrounding area is not significantly affected. It would be contrary to the Framework paragraph 135 insofar as planning decisions should ensure that development create places with a high standard of amenity for existing users.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) impose a statutory duty on me to consider whether [name] (EPS) would be affected by the proposal. All bat species are afforded EPS status and are protected under these Regulations.

The appellant contends that reasons for refusal relating to protected species is generally for applications where evidence indicates likely harm that cannot be mitigated, and that this reason for refusal is disproportionate. However, it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development, is established before planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision. The need to ensure ecological surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances.

The Council asserts that the appeal property is of pre-1960s construction and is located within 200m of woodland, and that in these circumstances an Ecology report should have been submitted with the planning application. Within the Ecology and [name] submitted with the planning application, the appellant asserts that the appeal property is not of pre-1960s construction and located within 200m of woodland, however has not substantiated on this. The proposed development would involve the removal of the roof of the existing dwelling, and I do not have sufficient evidence before me to satisfy me that a bat report is not required to establish the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development. In the absence of sufficient information on this matter, I cannot be certain of the effect of the proposed development on bats.

The appellant asserts that appeals are frequently allowed with ecological surveys secured by condition but has not substantiated on this. Surveys should only be secured by condition in exceptional circumstances; there are no exceptional circumstances before me which would justify imposing such a condition.

I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not give rise to adverse impacts on protected species, specifically bats. As such the scheme conflicts with Policy EN9 of the Mole Valley Local Plan (2024). This policy seeks, amongst other things, that development proposals give consideration to the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity at an early stage in the design process and, where identified, native habitats and species are conserved and enhanced as an integral part of the proposed development. It would conflict with the Framework paragraph 187 where it seeks to ensure that development minimises adverse impacts on biodiversity.

The appellant refers to several appeal decisions as being relevant to my considerations in this appeal. However, details of these appeals have not been provided, and therefore I cannot be certain they are comparable to the appeal before me. As such, the appeals referred to by the appellant have limited relevance to my considerations in this appeal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.