Appeal 6009174

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a rear extension at [site address] , Farnham [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2026/00003, 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: 1:1250 Site Location Plan and Drawing 1883/P-101.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the proposed measures identified within the submitted [name] and [name].

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or other openings other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed in the south west side elevation of the extension hereby permitted.

The main issues are the effect of the appeal proposal upon the occupants of [address], with specific reference to outlook; and whether the scheme would enable adequate private amenity space to be retained for existing and future occupants of the host dwelling.

The appeal site comprises an end link-semi-detached two storey house within a quiet private residential close. It currently has a single storey conservatory to its rear elevation, set away from both side boundaries; it is on slightly lower ground than the majority of the garden serving the appeal property.

The south western boundary shared with no5 is demarcated by a single close-boarded fence panel with bamboo screening and evergreen shrubbery within both the neighbouring rear garden and the appeal site for the remainder of its extent.

The proposed extension would be slightly deeper than the existing conservatory and would be wider, built just off of the aforementioned shared boundary. The submitted Proposed Site Plan identifies that the extension would conflict with a 45° line when taken from the centre of the nearest habitable room window on the ground floor of no5, although I note that the Council’s Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) states that the measurement should be taken from the furthest edge of the closest ground floor window for single storey extension proposals. The proposed extension would still conflict with such a 45° line, although not as significantly so and there does appear to be a degree of contradiction within the SPD in that where considering overbearing development paragraph 8.2 states that in the case of single storey developments, an extension may extend to the boundary, but in the spirit of good neighbourliness and to ensure adequate maintenance space, a 1m gap is encouraged. It goes on to state that in all instances the depth of the extension should not exceed 4m, although some sites may have specific constraints whereby this distance will need to be reduced.

At 3.8m the proposed extension would be slightly less than the suggested maximum within the SPD and whilst it would be closer to the shared boundary than 1m, nonetheless, by virtue of its flat roof and single storey form (albeit with a parapet wall) I consider, on balance, that the proposal would not be unduly overbearing upon the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling and the outlook from its rear garden would not be visually dominated by it.

In terms of whether the scheme would give rise to an overdevelopment of the plot, the majority of the extension would be constructed on the lower ground where the conservatory is currently sited and currently provides little more than circulation space for the occupants of the appeal dwelling. Consequently, I consider that the area of usable private amenity space would not be significantly reduced and would not conflict with the SPD which stipulates that applicants should ensure that a single extension or cumulative smaller extensions do not result in a significant loss of garden areas, as this can make the plot appear cramped and out of keeping with the surrounding area.

I note the Council’s concern that the rear amenity area would be reduced to such a degree that it would render it inadequate to serve the enlarged dwelling, although the proposal is only to provide new kitchen and dining facilities. Therefore, the number of bedrooms would remain as existing (2no) and there is nothing to suggest that the enlarged dwelling would give rise to an increase in occupation which could give rise to greater demand for outdoor amenity space. Again on balance, I consider that the proposal would not represent an overdevelopment of the plot and both the existing and future occupiers of the appeal dwelling would be protected by the proposal.

I find the scheme complies with the general spirit of the SPD and furthermore complies with Policy TD1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan (Part 1) 2018, Policy FNP16 of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan 2020 and Policy DM5 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan (Part 2) 2023 which together seek to maximise opportunities to improve the quality of life and health and well-being of current and future residents through the provision of amenity space that is private, usable, secure and defensible, as well as being appropriately located, whilst ensuring that the outlook of adjoining residents is safeguarded.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I consider that it is appropriate to require the development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area. Furthermore, I have imposed the Council’s two suggested conditions requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with submitted [name] and [name] and that Permitted Development Rights are removed to prevent the creation of any new openings in the south west side elevation of the extension hereby permitted. I consider that in the interests of sustainability and the protection of the occupants of no5 from a loss of privacy, that these conditions are both necessary.