Erection of a single storey side / rear extension (Re- submission of MO/2016/2042/PLAH)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 June 2018 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/C3620/D/18/3199400 29 Cannonside, Fetcham, Leatherhead KT22 9LE  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 Ms C Joseph against the decision of Mole Valley District Council.  The application, Ref. MO/2017/2247/PLAH, dated 18 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 13 February 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a single storey side / rear extension (Re- submission of MO/2016/2042/PLAH). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its surroundings, and (ii) the effect on the living conditions for adjoining occupiers at No. 27 Cannonside as regards outlook and daylight. Reasons 3. On the first issue, I saw on my visit that the appeal dwelling has already had its habitable floorspace increased through an extension and the conversion of the garage. The appeal scheme seeks a further extension and the consolidation of the previous additions into an addition almost the full width of the plot and with a depth roughly equivalent to that of the original bungalow at its maximum point along the eastern flank. 4. Planning policy normally requires extensions to be subservient to the original dwelling so as to maintain the integrity of its design and thereby the character and appearance of the area in which it is located. In the Mole Valley area, the Council has adopted Policies ENV22 and ENV32 as part of the Mole Valley Local Plan 2000. The former says that development should be appropriate to the site in terms of its scale, form and appearance and also that it should respect the character and appearance of the locality. 5. Policy ENV32 permits extensions to dwellings subject to a number of provisos that have a similar objective. These include the retention of the character and style of the existing property and a requirement that the development would not result in a cramped appearance having regard to the general spacing around buildings in the locality. The more recent Policy CS14 of the Mole Valley Appeal Decision APP/C3620/D/18/3199400 2 LDF Core Strategy DPD 2009 refers to the need for development to respect the character of the area and be of good design. 6. In my view, with its flat roof and, as mentioned, a width and depth essentially the same as the original dwelling, the appeal proposal would not be subservient and clearly fails to meet any of these policy requirements. The fact that No. 29 is one half of a pair of bungalows of similar scale and appearance only adds to the need to meet the requirements of Policy ENV22 and comply with the relevant provisos of Policy ENV32. 7. The grounds of appeal argue that the original uniformity of the bungalows on this side of Cannonside has been eroded by developments to the rear and the use of different materials. Furthermore, the extended building is not of any great architectural value and the scheme has the advantage of ‘squaring off’ the previous additions, whilst subservience would be achieved because the extension has a flat roof. 8. I accept the relevance of these points and give them some weight, as I do the limited views of the proposed additions from the public realm in Cannonside and the fact that the appellant needs more living space. Nonetheless, the cumulative effect of the previous additions and alterations and those now proposed would be to over-extend the building beyond the limit that might normally be accepted in the Council’s development management process. Moreover, the flat roof would be symptomatic of the extension’s utilitarian character, with no deference to the character and appearance of either the original semi-detached bungalow or more generally this side of Cannonside. 9. In these circumstances I cannot see how the appeal scheme can reasonably be assessed as consistent with the aforementioned Local Plan Policies ENV22 & ENV32; Core Strategy Policy CS14; the preclusion of ‘over-development’ in the first item of Policy ENV23, and Government policy in Section 7: ‘Requiring Good Design’ of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (‘the Framework’). Furthermore, if I were to allow the appeal it would be difficult for the Council to reasonably resist similar out of scale proposals on any of the other bungalows of the same or similar original design in Cannonside or elsewhere in the District. 10. Turning more briefly to the second issue of the effect on the living conditions for the occupiers of the adjoining No. 27, the argument in respect of daylight would appear to favour the Council given that the scheme fails the 45 and 25 degree tests from the centre of the nearest window of a single aspect room. However, the appellant refers to the French doors and a further window in this elevation as additional sources of daylight, whilst in addition I was not requested by the Council or the neighbour at No. 27 to see the situation at close quarters. On balance, and given the limited evidence available to me, I shall not regard the effect on No. 27’s daylight as being determinative in this appeal. 11. The other living conditions matter of an overbearing impact is easier to assess, as in terms of the neighbour’s outlook the proposal would ‘replace’ the existing 1.8m high fence with a 3m high wall for an additional 4.5m length of the boundary. Reference is made by the appellant to the permission for a 4m depth conservatory at No. 27, but this has now expired and it cannot be assumed that it would necessarily be constructed. Appeal Decision APP/C3620/D/18/3199400 3 12. I therefore consider that the combination of the extension’s height and length within 0.3m of the boundary, although perhaps not strictly ‘overbearing’, would result in an undue sense of enclosure in the outlook from the nearest window of No. 27 and this part of its garden. This would conflict with Local Plan Policies ENV22 & ENV32 and the core planning principles of the Framework. 13. I have considered all the other matters raised but conclude I should dismiss the appeal. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR