Single storey rear extension following demolition of existing conservatory with proposed two-storey rear extension and external renovations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 May 2019 by Penelope Metcalfe BA(Hons) MSc DipUP DipDBE MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29th May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/A3655/D/19/3224378 Sedbury, 549 Woodham Lane, Woking, GU21 5SP • 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 and Mrs Rayner against the decision of Woking Borough Council. • The application Ref PLAN/2018/0721, dated 9 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 19 December 2018. • The development proposed is single storey rear extension following demolition of existing conservatory with proposed two-storey rear extension and external renovations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension following demolition of existing conservatory with proposed two- storey rear extension and external renovations at Sedbury, 549 Woodham Lane, Woking, GU21 5SP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PLAN/2018/0721, dated 9 July 2018, and the plans submitted with it, 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: 475 SL/01, 475 S2/01A, 475 S2/02A, 475 S2/03A, 475 S2/04A, 475 S2/05A, 475 S4/01C, 475 S4/02C, 475 S4/03C, 475 S4/04C, 475 S4/05B, 475 S4/06B and 475 S4/07B. 3) No development shall take place until a written specification of all external materials to be used in the construction of the development hereby permitted has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out and thereafter retained in accordance with the approved details. Main issues 2. I consider that the main issues in this case are its effect on the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of neighbouring residents by reason of overbearing. Appeal Decision APP/A3655/D/19/3224378 2 Reasons 3. Sedbury is a two storey detached house set back from the road behind a substantial evergreen hedge with two vehicular entrances. It occupies a large plot and is located on the south side of Woodham Lane. It is one of a long row of detached houses constructed in a wide variety of styles and materials, also typically in large plots. 4. The policy most relevant in this case is CS21 of the Woking Core Strategy 2027 (the Core Strategy) which requires, among other things, that new development should respect the street scene, having regard to scale, height, proportions, materials and other characteristics of the area, and should avoid significant harmful impact on adjoining properties. 5. Also relevant are the Council’s Supplementary Planning Documents Woking Design SPD 2015 (the Design SPD) and Outlook, Amenity, Privacy & Daylight 2008 (the Outlook SPD) which offer detailed advice regarding matters of design and the impact of development on neighbouring residential properties. 6. The proposal would result in alterations to the appearance of the front of the house, mainly in respect of changing the roof form and raising its height, replacing the existing brick and tile hanging with render and replacing the existing porches and forward gable with a single full height forward projecting gable. There would also be changes to the fenestration. 7. The rear elevation would also be altered to create a two storey extension along the width of the main part of the house with two gables allowing for rooms in the roof. The side and rear elevations would be rendered. The existing conservatory would be demolished and the pool house renewed and altered to include a games room projecting into the rear garden. 8. I consider that, although these changes would be quite radical, they would not necessarily be unacceptable in the context of the house itself since it appears to have been unsympathetically altered in the past and the proposal would result in a more cohesive architectural form. 9. Similarly, it would not have an unacceptable adverse effect on the street scene. It is only visible in glimpses from the road because it is mainly screened by vegetation. There is a wide range of building styles along the street with few common elements although there are several examples of fully rendered houses. Many of the houses along the street are large and in this context, the proposal would appear as a house of similar scale to those and not out of proportion with the prevailing pattern of development. Although the single storey extension would occupy more of the rear garden than the existing, it would not amount to overdevelopment. The plot is large enough to accommodate the proposed extensions as a whole and an adequate amount of private amenity space would remain available. 10. I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and that, in this respect, it would not be contrary to Core Strategy policy CS21 and the advice in the Design and Outlook SPDs. 11. The pool house and proposed games room would result into a long single storey extension into the rear garden approximately 12m beyond the existing pool house and 2-3m from the boundary with Fairway, the neighbouring property. This boundary has a mixture of fencing, dense hedging and trees Appeal Decision APP/A3655/D/19/3224378 3 which forms a mutual screen between the two properties and at the time of my visit there was a small greenhouse and a shed close to the boundary. 12. I consider that the proposal would not appear overbearing to the occupiers of Fairway who I note have submitted a letter of support. 13. The proposed balcony at roof level would be recessed from the main rear elevation between the two gables. Although it would be visible from the properties at 16 and 18 Woodham Waye to the southwest, I consider that there is adequate separation between the properties to prevent an unacceptable impact either visually or in terms of noise. 14. I conclude that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and that it would not be contrary to Core Strategy policy CS21 and the advice in the Design and Outlook SPDs. 15. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed. Conditions 16. I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council, having regard to the tests set out in the Framework. A condition detailing the plans is necessary to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and for the avoidance of doubt. A condition relating to the materials is necessary in order to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development. PAG Metcalfe INSPECTOR