Appeal 6007280

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Proposed single storey rear extension, first floor side/rear extension and ground and first floor front extension at [site address] , Surrey [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/2406, and the plans submitted with it, 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 drawing nos 2025/1196/1A; 2025/1196/2A; 2025/1196/3A; 2025/1196/4; 2025/1196/5; 2025/1196/6.

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 upon the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring houses, with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site relates to an end of terrace house in a row of 4 houses. There are side passages either side of a boundary fence which separates the appeal property from the neighbouring house, No 41, which is the end property on a separate terrace.

Although the Council’s reason for refusing the planning application refers to the proposal having an overbearing impact on adjoining occupiers, the Officer’s delegated report only identifies harm in relation to occupiers of No 41. Appeal Decision: 6007280

It was noted that the proposed front extensions would exceed a 45-degree line taken from the windows of No 38, which the [name] (2024) (EDC) sets as guidance for assessing the impact of a proposal on light to neighbouring windows, but can also indicate the effects on outlook from them. However, the breach was assessed as being minor with little impact on light due to their south facing orientation and no undue harm to outlook. I agree with the Council’s assessment that the impacts on occupants of No 37 would be acceptable.

The 2-storey side and rear extension, which was identified by the Council as having an overbearing impact on occupiers of No 41, would bring part of the flank wall of the appeal property approximately 1.2m closer to No 41 and project 1.65m back from its first-floor rear wall. The only windows on No 41 that would be directly affected are a first-floor obscured glazed side window and a kitchen side window. Both windows face the side wall on the appeal property and the outlook from them is therefore already restricted and would not be significantly altered as a result of the proposed development. Also, the kitchen is dual aspect with light and outlook from its other window remaining unaffected by the proposed development.

Given the minor rearward projection of the proposed second floor rear extension, and the gap between it and No 41’s rear facing windows, it would not significantly impact on outlook from them. Furthermore, the Council acknowledges that it would not breach the 45-degree line set out in the EDC.

The ground floor extension would project back 5.6m from the main rear wall, but it would lie next to a rear projecting lean-to on No 41 which is a similar depth. Consequently, there would be little change to the outlook from, and light to, the nearest ground floor windows on No 41.

Overall, I conclude that there would be no harm to the outlook of neighbouring occupiers and the proposal would accord with Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan (2015), the EDC, and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) which require development to protect the amenity of adjoining occupiers.

The standard time limit condition and a plans condition are necessary to provide certainty and a condition regarding materials is necessary to protect the character and appearance of the area. Subject to these and for the reasons given the appeal should succeed.