Erection of a two storey side and single storey rear extension following demolition of existing side extension. Addition of front and side dormer windows

https://www.gov.uk/planning -inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 May 2026 by G Ellis BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008522 16 Horsell Moor, Woking, GU21 4NH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Helen Ballerino against the decision of Woking Borough Council. • The application Ref is PLAN/2025/0930. • The development proposed is the erection of a two storey side and single storey rear extension following demolition of existing side extension. Addition of front and side dormer windows. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached, two-storey house and forms part of a row of similar properties. The other half of the semi -detached pair (No.15), as well as the neighbouring semi s (Nos.17 & 18), have two-storey side extensions. The proposal would also extend to the rear, including a further single -storey element beyond, and incorporate dormer windows. Together, this would add significant massing to the property, and the alterations to the roof would be at odds with the prevailing hipped roof form. 4. The rear dormers would not be visible from the street but would create an incongruous form with the dormers on both sides of a rear gabled projection, and to the front the addition would be an anomaly in the street scene. 5. The appellant has drawn my attention to No. 32, which has front dormers. However, these dormers are part of the property’s original design, forming the first floor, and the property is a more recent addition to the street than the predominantly Victorian/E dwardian properties that define the area’s character. In addition, Horsell Moor is developed on one side only, and No. 32 does not form part of the appeal property’s immediate street scene. 6. The extension would be set back and offset from the side boundary, although this would be limited. Due to the tapered alignment of the boundary, the existing extension to the adjacent property, and the additional bulk to the roofscape and dormer, it would be a visually intrusive addition and out of keeping with the appearance of this group of properties. Appeal Decision 6008522 https://www.gov.uk/planning -inspectorate 2 7. The footprint of the property would not increase substantially, and I accept that extensions can introduce different , but complementary, design elements. In this instance , however, the combined scale, massing and design of the proposal would consume the host property and fail to harmonise with it s setting. 8. As such, the proposal would not integrate with the character and appearance of the host property and street scene. Thus, the proposed development would be contrary to Policies CS21 and CS24 of the Woking Core Strategy (2012) which together require that new development respects and makes a positive contribution to the street scene and enhance s the townscape character. 9. There would also be conflict with the similar design objectives of the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework , which supports good design and development that is sympathetic to local character. Other Matters 10. I recognise the appellant’s desire to increase the size of the property for their growing family and also that the narrow form of the property and plot presents challenges in that regard. These matters do not alter my assessment of the proposal in relation to the development plan, and the development would essentially be a private benefit for the occupiers. Conclusion 11. For the reasons set out and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. G Ellis INSPECTOR