Two storey side and rear extension, and part single storey rear extension following demolition of existing garage and erection of outbuilding to rear of site

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 August 2020 by Andre Pinto BA MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3 November 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/Q3630/D/20/3247911 21 Sundon Crescent, Virginia Water GU25 4RF • 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 Harmek Mand against the decision of Runnymede Borough Council. • The application Ref RU.19/1624, dated 11 October 2019, was refused by notice dated 24 December 2019. • The development proposed is two storey side and rear extension, and part single storey rear extension following demolition of existing garage and erection of outbuilding to rear of site. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I have adopted the description of the development included in the Council’s Decision Notice as it more accurately describes the proposed works. 3. Subsequent to the determination of the application that is the subject of this appeal, the Runnymede 2030 Local Plan (the Local Plan) was adopted by the Runnymede Borough Council in July 2020. The Council’s Decision Notice referred to a conflict with saved policies contained in the Runnymede Borough Local Plan Second Alteration (2001). These policies have now been superseded by those contained within the recently adopted plan. Consequently, I have made my decision based on the policies included in the Local Plan. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • biodiversity and nature conservation, with particular regard to an Area of Priority Habitat. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal site is located in a quiet residential street characterised by a predominance of one storey and one and a half storey semi-detached dwellings, many with dormers built into their pitched roofs, set back from the highway, with gardens at the front. Appeal Decision APP/Q3630/D/20/3247911 2 6. Although varied in terms of design and materials, the dwellings along the Crescent share similar details, particularly in terms of their height and building line, giving the area an open, verdant and harmonious feel. 7. Although the proposed side extension would be set back slightly from the front elevation and the ridgeline would be slightly lower than that of the host building, the proposed two storey front extension would lead to a significant reduction in the gap between the appeal site and 19 Sundon Crescent. 8. Although there is no consistently applied gap across the area and surrounding developments, one of the key characteristics that defines the character and appearance of the area is its verdant and open feel. By significantly reducing the gap between No 19 and No 21, the proposed development would have a negative effect on this key characteristic. 9. In addition, the proposed extension has a shallow roof line with a large flat section. Considering the design of the host building and the buildings immediately surrounding the appeal site, this would be at odds with the dominant design features of both the host dwelling and the dwellings to either side of the appeal site. 10. 23 Sundon Crescent, which the appeal site is paired with, does have a more imposing extension to the side of the property than that of No 21 which also has a shallow flat roof line. Nevertheless, the extension at No 23 is a single storey high extension and, due to its height and bulk, it remains subservient to the host dwelling. 11. In conclusion, and for the reasons stated above, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and, consequently, in that regard, in conflict with policy EE1 of the Local Plan which aims to promote good quality design. Biodiversity and nature conservation 12. Policy EE9 of the Local Plan, aims to secure net gains in biodiversity through enhancement and management of habitats and states that development proposals should demonstrate how this will be achieved. 13. Paragraph 170 a) of National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that planning decisions should contribute to, and enhance the natural and local environment by, protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, sites of biodiversity or geological value and soils. Paragraph 170 d) also states that planning decisions should minimising impacts on, and providing net gains for, biodiversity. 14. The site includes a number of well established, large oak trees, which appear to be in good condition, but are not covered by a Tree Preservation Order or classified as ancient or veteran trees. Nevertheless, the site’s location in an Area of Priority Habitat is not a matter of dispute between the parties. 15. The appellant has stated that the site where the proposed outbuilding would be located has already been cleared and permission has been secured, from Wentworth Estates, to remove trees in the rear garden with the exception of three mature oak trees. Appeal Decision APP/Q3630/D/20/3247911 3 16. Nevertheless, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate the effects of the development proposal on the Area of Priority Habitat, including possible impacts of the development on the canopy or root system of the three remaining oak trees. Consequently, I can not be confident that the development would not have a detrimental impact on an Area of Priority Habitat. 17. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, I find that the present proposal would likely negatively impact on biodiversity and nature conservation and therefore be in conflict with Policy EE9 of the Local Plan, which aims to secure net gains in biodiversity, and the Framework. Other Matters 18. The appeal site falls within the “Zone of Influence” of the Thames Basin Heath Special Protection Area (TBH SPA). The SPA comprises an area of lowland heath and woodland and is a habitat protected supporting a characteristic landscape and distinctive flora and fauna under threat and in decline. 19. All development which is not directly connected with, or necessary for, the conservation management of a habitat site, requires consideration of whether it is likely to have significant effects on the sensitive interest features of European designated sites, through increased recreational pressure, particularly when considered ‘in combination’ with other plans and projects. 20. Therefore, by virtue of its protected status, an Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (CHSR) would be required were I minded to allow the appeal. Nevertheless, considering that the appeal is to be dismissed on other issues mentioned in this decision, no further consideration is required on this matter as planning permission in not being granted. Conclusion 21. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Andre Pinto INSPECTOR