Two storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 May 2021 by Michael J Muston BA(Hons) MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 May 2021. Appeal Ref: APP/Y3615/D/21/3267034 16 Chittys Walk, Guildford GU3 3HW • 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 Vorta against the decision of Guildford Borough Council. • The application Ref 20/P/01510/FUL, dated 4 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 29 October 2020. • The development proposed is a two storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey side extension at 16 Chittys Walk, Guildford GU3 3HW, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/P/01510, dated 4 September 2020, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: drawings numbered EB/377/01 and EB/377/02. 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. 4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the details contained in “Appendix 5: Protection” of the Preliminary bat roost assessment provided by Chase Economic Consultancy (Ref CE 1664), with a site visit date of 15/12/20. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of Kingsland, with particular regard to whether the development would be overbearing, or result in a material loss of light. Reasons 3. The proposal would extend the existing two storey built form closer to the adjoining dwelling, Kingsland, and would be very close to the common boundary between the two properties. However, the boundary is currently marked by a very high evergreen hedge, which runs all the way along the northern edge of Kingsland’s rear garden. This hedge is on higher ground than Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/D/21/3267034 2 the patio area to the rear of Kingsland and is a very dominant feature when seen from there, and from windows in Kingsland’s rear elevation. 4. The appellant is currently building a single storey side extension under permitted development rights, and the hedge has been retained on the boundary. In the event that this appeal is allowed, the proposed two storey extension would be built on top of this existing extension. The high evergreen hedge would therefore remain in position, and the increased height of the extension behind and beyond it would not result in the built form at the appeal site becoming overbearing or materially impacting on the amount of sunlight or daylight reaching Kingsland’s rear windows or rear garden. 5. Even if the hedge were to die or were to be removed in the future, the location of the proposed extension, to the north of Kingsland’s rear garden, would not unacceptably impact on the amount of sunlight that would otherwise have reached Kingsland and its rear garden. Neither do I consider that any loss of daylight or overbearing impact that might result from the extension, in the hypothetical absence of the hedge, would be so significant that permission for the extension should be withheld. 6. I conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of Kingsland, and would comply with saved Policy G1(3) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003, which requires that the amenities enjoyed by occupants of buildings are protected from unneighbourly development in terms of privacy, access to sunlight and daylight, noise, vibration, pollution, dust and smell. Other Matters 7. The Council also refused the application on the grounds that the applicant had failed to carry out adequate bat surveys to enable the impact of the proposal on bats to be assessed. Since the application was refused, the appellant has commissioned a Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment, which shows that the appeal site is not used as a roost by bats and that the building on site does not contain any suitable features of value to bats. 8. The Parish Council objected to the application, on the grounds that it would look out of keeping with the local street scene, and a lack of parking. I agree with the Council that the location of the appeal site would ensure that the extension would not be prominent, and that the construction of the extension does not necessitate the provision of additional parking spaces. Conditions 9. In addition to the standard time condition, another listing the submitted plans is required, to provide certainty as to what has been approved. A condition requiring matching external materials is also necessary, to ensure that the character and appearance of the area is preserved. Finally, a condition is required to ensure that the recommendations contained in an appendix to the Bat Roost assessment are followed, in the interests of protected species. Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/D/21/3267034 3 Conclusion 10. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions set out above. Michael J Muston INSPECTOR