Appeal 6007050

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of the proposed development in the banner heading above from the Council’s decision notice as this gives a more accurate description of the proposal.

I note that the Council’s Officer Report concluded that the proposed porch, front bay window and part conversion of the integral garage to habitable accommodation would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the existing dwelling or surrounding area. I have no reason to disagree with the opinion of the Council in this matter. Taking this into account, the only outstanding matters in dispute are with regards to the ground floor side and rear extension and the two-storey rear extension.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon: • the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area; and • the living conditions of occupiers of Nos 44 and [address], with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal property is a 2-storey detached house with a flat roofed garage attached to the side. The appeal site and neighbouring houses are set back behind front gardens on a curve in the road on a slight hill. No 48 sits slightly lower than Appeal Decision: 6007050 the appeal property and is set back behind the appeal property building line whereas No 44 sits slightly forward of it. Both neighbouring houses are single storey bungalows.

The appeal property is prominent when approaching from the junction to the east because it is on a bend in the road, sits forward of No 48 and is higher than both single storey neighbouring houses. Consequently, the side wall of the house and garage is visible from the road and pavement and there is a visual gap between the appeal property and No 48 from this approach which enables glimpses across to the rear of the house and garage with trees and hedges visible in the background.

The proposed single storey side and rear extension would extend substantially back from the rear of the attached garage and 6m from the existing rear wall, significantly exceeding the 3m guideline in the Runnymede Design Supplementary Planning Document (2021) (SPD). Viewed from the side, it would appear incongruous and out of proportion with the main house and fill most of the visual gap that I have identified.

Although it would only be visible when passing close by the appeal site it would nonetheless harm the character and appearance of the appeal property and street scene. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policy EE1 of the Runnymede Local Plan (2020) (LP), Policy ND5 of the [site address] Village Neighbourhood Plan (2024) (NP), the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) which require high quality development of an appropriate scale to its setting.

No 48 has a front projecting wing at the back of which the main entrance to the property faces side on to the boundary fence with the appeal site. The wing contains bedrooms, one of which has its only window facing towards the boundary fence.

The proposed ground floor extension side wall would extend approximately parallel to No 48’s front wing close to the boundary and end level with the bedroom window. Although it would fall short of No 48’s main entrance because of the difference in site levels it would create a tunnelling effect on the footpath approach to it, from which it would have an overbearing presence.

I note that the Council regarded the distance between the proposed ground floor extension and the bedroom window on No 48’s side wall would be sufficient to avoid harming the outlook from it. However, during my visit it was clear that whilst the boundary fence already restricts outlook there are views of the sky above it which provide some visual relief. The proposed extension side wall would be significantly higher than the existing fence, substantially filling the field of vision looking directly out from the window. Whilst there would be a band of sky visible above it, the proposed development would, in my view, appear overbearing and have an unacceptable impact on the outlook from No 48’s bedroom window.

The rear building line of the appeal property is stepped back beyond that of No 44 and consequently it’s flank wall is visible, albeit peripheral to views, from No 44’s rear windows and garden, including the patio that runs along the rear of the house. The proposed extensions would continue the side wall with the 2-storey element extending 3m and the single storey element extending 6m from the back wall of the Appeal Decision: 6007050 house, close to the boundary fence. Although the extra mass would impact on views from the garden and house, the garden is relatively deep and wide such that the proposed development would remain peripheral and not dominate views from most of the rear of the property to a level that it would harm the occupant’s outlook to an unacceptable degree.

Overall, I conclude on this main issue that the proposed development would have an unacceptable overbearing impact on the occupiers of No 48 and would therefore conflict with Policy EE1 of the LP, Policy ND5 of the NP, the SPD and the Framework which seek to prevent development from adversely impacting on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

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