First floor side extension, part two storey part single storey rear wraparound extension and a single rear loft dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 September 2018 by R J Maile BSc FRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A3655/D/18/3205645 Ridge View, Horsell Birch, Woking, Surrey, GU21 4XD.  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 Craig and Mrs Rebecca Feather against the decision of Woking Borough Council.  The application ref: PLAN/2018/0321, dated 21 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 17 May 2018.  The development proposed is first floor side extension, part two storey part single storey rear wraparound extension and a single rear loft dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are: a) The effect of the proposed extensions upon the character and appearance of the host building and that of the surrounding area. b) The impact of the first floor side extension upon the living conditions of existing and future occupiers of Swincombe next door. Reasons a) Effect upon character and appearance. 3. This property comprises a detached house erected during the inter-war period. It is located on the outskirts of Woking overlooking Horsell Birch, an area of woodland. 4. The dwellings along this section of the road vary in design, with Swincombe next door to the north being a detached chalet bungalow. Lynton, which is the neighbouring property to the south, is a semi-detached house. The surrounding development is generally low density, reflecting its edge of settlement location. 5. The scheme before me proposes the erection of a first floor extension above the existing garage, utility room and a part of the kitchen, together with a part two storey/part single storey wrap around rear extension. The bulk of the roof would be increased to span the first floor side extension and would incorporate Appeal Decision APP/A3655/D/18/3205645 2 a rear-facing dormer window and roof lights to the front and flank elevations. The front elevation would be redesigned to incorporate a matching gable end to the first floor extension. 6. National policy as set out at Chapter 12 of the Framework1 seeks the creation of high quality buildings and places. Paragraph 127 specifically requires that developments should be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character, including the surrounding built environment, while Criterion d) also requires proposals to maintain a strong sense of place using the arrangement of streets, spaces, building types and materials. 7. Policy CS21 of the adopted Core Strategy2 states, amongst other matters, that proposals for new development should create buildings and places that are attractive. They should respect and make a positive contribution to the street scene and the character of the area in which they are situated, paying due regard to the scale, height, proportions, building lines, layout, materials and other characteristics of adjoining buildings and land. 8. The Woking Design SPD3 sets out design guidance for a range of development types, including residential extensions. It refers to the need for the mass of residential extensions to respect building proportion, symmetry and balance. 9. The extensions have been designed to a high standard. In particular, the front elevation with its matching gable would create a balanced appearance as viewed from the street. However, given the mostly single storey format of Swincombe next door the large expanse of unrelieved rendering to the flank elevation of the first floor side extension would appear as an over-dominant feature in the street scene. By reason of its bulk and rearward projection this element of the scheme would also fail the test of subservience to the host dwelling. 10. I therefore find upon the first main issue that development as proposed would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host building and that of the surrounding area contrary to national policy at Chapter 12 of the Framework, Policy CS21 of the adopted Core Strategy and the requirements of the Woking Design SPD, as referred to above. b) Impact upon living conditions. 11. As part of my site visit I viewed the proposal from the garden of Swincombe next door, the dining room of which has casement doors leading to the rear patio area and garden. That room is also served by a south-facing window. Although described in the Officer’s Report as a “secondary habitable room window” this is a large picture window that would face directly towards the proposed first floor side extension with its blank wall and high pitched roof. 12. This element of the appeal proposal, being some 12m in depth, would not only appear as a dominant feature as viewed from the dining room, but would also bring about loss of outlook and daylight to the room. The calculations that are submitted as part of the application also indicate a loss of afternoon sunlight to the dining room and to a portion of the rear patio area. 1 The National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018). 2 The Woking Core Strategy (October 2012). 3 The Woking Design Supplementary Planning Document (February 2015). Appeal Decision APP/A3655/D/18/3205645 3 13. These factors, in combination, have led me to find upon the second main issue that development as proposed would result in an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenity of existing and future occupiers of Swincombe next door, contrary to Policy CS21 of the adopted Core Strategy. Other Matters 14. My attention has been directed to a number of other extensions that have been permitted in Horsell Rise and in nearby streets. In particular, I was referred to substantial extensions and alterations undertaken at Fairlight Cottage, Horsell Birch, permitted as recently as 2016. 15. Some of these cases pre-date national policy in the Framework and/or adoption of the Woking Core Strategy. In any event, several of the examples that have been provided to me do not incorporate such a large and bulky rearward projection at first floor level, which factor has largely influenced my decision to dismiss the appeal. Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should fail. R. J. Maile INSPECTOR