Erection of a porch, a single storey side extension to the south east, a double storey side extension to the north west and a first floor extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 February 2020 by Andrew Bremford BSc (Hons) MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 March 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/R3650/D/19/3242806 New Horizon, 1 Pine Grove, Lower Bourne, Farnham GU10 3RG • 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 James Thomas against the decision of Waverley Borough Council. • The application Ref WA/2019/1220, dated 10 July 2019, was refused by notice dated 21 October 2019. • The development proposed is the erection of a porch, a single storey side extension to the south east, a double storey side extension to the north west and a first floor extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted for the erection of a porch, a single storey side extension to the south east, a double storey side extension to the north west and a first floor extension at New Horizon, 1 Pine Grove, Lower Bourne, Farnham GU10 3RG in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref WA/2019/1220, dated 10 July 2019, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: ‘Proposed Plans Ground’ 392_S4/01 Revision E; ‘Proposed Plans First’ 392_S4/02 Revision E; ‘Proposed Plans Roof’ 392_S4/03 Revision E; ‘Proposed Elevations Front & Rear’ 392_S4/04 Revision D; ‘Proposed Elevations Side’ 392_S4/05 Revision D; ‘Proposed Views Front’ 392_S4/06 Revision E; ‘Proposed Views Rear’ 392_S4/07 Revision E; and ‘Proposed Site Section’ 392_S4/08 Revision B. 3) 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. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision APP/R3650/D/19/3242806 2 Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a detached single-storey property positioned within a substantial plot on the eastern side of Pine Grove, a relatively narrow road with no footways. It lies within a predominantly residential area characterised by properties of varying sizes, a mix of single-storey and two-storey dwellings, of varying architectural styles and constructed of a mixed pallet of external materials. The property is one of three along the eastern side of Pine Grove which, by virtue of their staggered mono pitched roofs and other design characteristics, have a similar modern appearance. 4. The proposed development would incorporate a single-storey side extension, a porch, a two-storey side extension to the north-west elevation, and a first-floor extension. 5. The proposal would result in a relatively small increase in the footprint of the property. Furthermore, the first-floor extension would be modest in comparison to the overall size of the existing building and would incorporate a similar roof design to that of the host property. Thus, although the scale, bulk and mass of the existing building would increase as a result of the development, taking into account the aforementioned factors, in combination with the use of sympathetic materials, the proposed extensions would not dominate the host building nor materially alter its character. 6. The proposal would increase the size of the building. However, considering the wide variety in the size of properties in the area, the proposed development, in this regard, would not result in a dwelling that would stand out from others in the locality. Notwithstanding the elevated position of the host building within the site, overall, the relatively modest increase in built form would not appear as an unacceptably strident or prominent feature in the streetscene. 7. For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, in this regard, it would not conflict with Policy TD1 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies and Sites 2018; Policies FNP1, FNP8 and FNP16 of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan 2017; Policies D1 and D4 of the Waverley Borough Council Local Plan 2002; paragraphs 124, 127 and 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework, or the Farnham Design Statement 2010 which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that the design of proposals have an acceptable appearance and respect the character of existing development in the surrounding area. Other Matters 8. Third parties have raised concerns about overlooking. Given the separation distances involved the proposal would not result in a material loss of privacy to the occupiers of ‘Haris’, Pine Grove, due to overlooking. Taking into account the angle of vision from the proposed windows at first floor level in the north-east and north-west elevations, and the presence of some screening afforded by trees and other vegetation along the boundary of the site, the proposal would not result in a significant loss of privacy to the occupiers of ‘Eastdene’, Lodge Hill Road, due to overlooking of their rear garden. Furthermore, the degree of overlooking would not be dissimilar to that commonplace within built-up areas. Appeal Decision APP/R3650/D/19/3242806 3 Conditions 9. Planning permission is granted subject to the standard three-year time limit condition. I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant plans as this provides certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, it is necessary to impose a materials condition. Conclusion 10. For the reasons set out above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Andrew Bremford INSPECTOR