First floor side extension with a mezzanine

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 November 2021 by Les Greenwood MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:16th December 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/D3640/D/21/3279300 37 Bosman Drive, Windlesham GU20 6JN • 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 Mark Applegate against the decision of Surrey Heath Borough Council. • The application Ref 21/0432/FFU, dated 15 April 2021, was refused by notice dated 7 June 2021. • The development proposed is a first floor side extension with a mezzanine. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. A new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 20 July 2021, just after the appeal was submitted. The revised Framework does not significantly alter my assessments in this appeal. I am satisfied that no parties have been prejudiced by my having regard to this change in national policy. Main issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of this part of Bosman Drive. Reasons 4. Bosman Drive is a residential street characterised mainly by detached modern 2 storey houses, many of which like No 37 have a single storey garage to one side. The proposal is to build a first floor side extension over the garage and part of the kitchen to the rear. 5. The Surrey Heath Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (RDG) advises that extensions have the potential to erode gaps which contribute to visual amenity and character. No 37 sits on a looped segment of Bosman Drive, where it forms a focal point in views along the street. In this situation, the existing first floor level gap between No 37 and No 35 next door is important to the appearance of the area, helping it to retain a suburban character rather than a more tightly developed urban feel. Appeal Decision APP/D3640/D/21/3279300 2 6. Although the proposed extension would be set back slightly from the main front wall and set down slightly from the main roof, it would nevertheless block views over the top of the existing low garage, leaving only a very narrow gap between full height structures at Nos 35 and 37. The proposal would therefore appear as a cramped addition and would detract from the street scene. 7. I note that some other houses in the area have first floor side extensions over their garages. Most of these leave a larger gap and none are in the same situation as No 37. They have not changed the character of Bosman Drive so significantly that the proposal would fit in well here. 8. I conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of this part of Bosman Drive. It therefore conflicts with the aims of Policy DM9 of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies 2011-2028, Policies WNP2.1 and WNP2.2 of the Windlesham Neighbourhood Plan 2018-2028, Principles 10.1 and 10.3 of the RDG and the Framework, to secure high quality design that maintains important gaps between buildings. 9. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. Les Greenwood INSPECTOR