For construction of a second floor extension above the retained existing garage to provide 2 bedrooms

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 February 2018 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 08 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A3655/D/17/3189477 10 Meadow Rise, Knaphill, Woking GU21 2LJ  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Michael Parker against the decision of Woking Borough Council.  The application Ref PLAN/2017/0701, dated 15 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 31 October 2017.  The development proposed is for construction of a second floor extension above the retained existing garage to provide 2 bedrooms. Decision 1. I dismiss the appeal. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and the effect upon the living conditions of the occupants of 9 Meadow Rise, with specific reference to outlook and daylight. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The appeal site comprises a detached house situated within a residential cul-de- sac on higher ground, and orientated at an angle to the road. The extension would comprise a first floor construction over an existing garage that has a flat roof concealed by a dummy pitched roof to its frontage. 9 Meadow Rise, whilst of a different design with a gable frontage, also has a single storey garage attached to its north west elevation and therefore adjacent to where the extension would be constructed. 4. I noted on my site visit that there is no clearly definable spacing between dwellings in Meadow Rise, or Swallow Rise from which it is accessed, with the gaps between some properties being limited to a closer relationship between their respective flank two storey elevations. I also noted other examples where houses have been extended at first floor level in a similar manner to that proposed, therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the scheme would reduce the existing gap between nos 9 and 10, I find that it would not be unduly out of character with its surroundings. Appeal Decision APP/A3655/D/17/3189477 2 5. On this issue therefore I consider that the proposed development by reason of its siting and proximity to the side boundary would not result in an overly cramped or contrived form of development. Therefore, it would not give rise to an overdevelopment of the site or have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of either the existing property, the street scene it finds itself situated within or the wider area. I find in terms of character and appearance only, the proposal would not conflict with the first bulletpoint of Policy CS21 of the Woking Core Strategy 2012 in that the proposal would respect the street scene and the character of the area, paying due regard to the scale, height, proportions, building lines, layout, materials and other characteristics of adjoining buildings and land. 6. Further, I find no conflict either between the proposal and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document ‘Design’ 2015 in that the extension would not result in an unbalanced or disproportionate frontage, and would leave a visual gap at first floor level between the appeal dwelling and no 9. Further, as each case must be assessed on its own merits, I consider that by not raising issue to the proposal on design grounds, I am not setting a precedent or binding future decision makers in determining other proposals. Living Conditions 7. However, no 9 has a first floor window on the facing elevation which serves a habitable room and is the sole means of outlook for the bedroom. On this matter the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document ‘Outlook, Amenity, Privacy and Daylight’ 2008 (OAPDSPD) stipulates in paragraph 3.4 that “Outlook from a principal window will generally become adversely affected when the height of any vertical facing structure exceeds the separation distance from the window. When a structure is placed too close to a window so that it completely dominates the outlook it will have an overbearing impact”. Whilst I have found the proposal acceptable in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the area, nonetheless it would bring built form at first floor level significantly closer to the facing window on no 9 than is currently the case. 8. Furthermore, where relating to daylight, section 6 of the SPD highlights that development proposals will need to demonstrate how daylighting of existing dwellings is safeguarded and in response to this the Council state that the proposed first floor side addition would fail the 25° test as set out therein. No evidence has been provided by the appellants to counteract this claim. I accept that a gap of 4.7m would remain between the window and the flank elevation of the extension, however, this is a significant erosion of the current situation. Therefore by virtue of the close proximity of the extension to the first floor window on the north western facing flank elevation of 9 Meadow Rise, I can only conclude that the proposal would give rise to a detrimental overbearing impact that would also give rise to a loss of daylight which would be harmful to the occupiers of the neighbouring property. 9. Whilst I note that the project was redesigned to increase the space between the properties and I can understand the appellants’ frustration in being advised by an Officer of the Council who subsequently left the authority. However, the decision notice that is before me is the legal decision of the Council as Local Planning Authority and informal Officer advice cannot bind any future Appeal Decision APP/A3655/D/17/3189477 3 recommendation or formal decision that may be made by the Council. Although I am aware of the specific examples that have been advanced that may or may not demonstrate that this scheme is less of an overbearing feature on the neighbouring property than many other local examples, I have been provided with little detail of those developments and, in any event, each case must be assessed on its own merits. This, along with the fact that by virtue of the orientation of the offended window that the proposal would unlikely give rise to a material loss of sunlight or consequent material level of overshadowing, does not outweigh the harm that the proposal would have upon the living conditions of the neighbouring property. 10. Therefore to conclude I consider that the proposal would have an unacceptable overbearing effect and would give rise to loss of daylight to the occupants of 9 Meadow Rise. The proposal would fail to comply with the second bullet point of CS Policy CS21 which requires new development to achieve a satisfactory relationship to adjoining properties, avoiding significant harmful impact in terms of, amongst other things, loss of daylight or an overbearing effect due to bulk, proximity or outlook, as well as the second half of the Framework’s design Core Planning Principle which seeks a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. The proposal also conflicts with the Council’s OAPDSPD for the reasons given above. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed. C J Tivey INSPECTOR