Single storey rear extension, double storey side extension, garage conversion and internal changes

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 August 2026 by Megan Thomas K.C. an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010046 10A Nutshell Lane, Upper Hale, Farnham, Surrey GU9 0HG • 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 Mr George Doyle against the decision of Waverley Borough Council. • The application ref. is WA/2026/00030. • The development proposed is a “single storey rear extension, double storey side extension, garage conversion and internal changes.” Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension, double storey side extension, garage conversion and internal changes at 10A Nutshell Lane, Upper Hale, Farnham, Surrey GU9 0HG, in accordance with the terms of the application, ref. WA/2026/00030 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 strict accordance with the following approved plans: Existing Location Plan and Block Plan at 1:1250 and 1:500; Proposed Location Plan & Block Plan at 1:1250 and 1:500; A001 – Existing Ground Floor; A002 – Existing First Floor, A003 – Existing Loft; A004 – Existing Roof; A005 – Ex Front Elevation; A006 – Ex Rear Elevation; A007 – Ex Side Elevation (From no. 12); A008 – Ex Side Elevation (From no. 10);A009 – Existing Section; A010 – Existing 3D, as originally filed; P-01 Rev. A – Proposed Ground Floor Plan; P-02 Rev. A – Proposed First Floor Plan; P-03 Rev. A – Proposed Loft Plan; P-04 Rev. A – Proposed Roof Plan; P-05 Rev. A – Proposed Front Elevation; P-06 Rev. A – Proposed Rear Elevation; P-07 Rev. A – Proposed Side Elevation (From no. 12); P-08 Rev. A – Proposed Side Elevation (From no. 10); P-09 Rev. A – Proposed Sections; P-10 Rev. A – Proposed 3D View and P-11 Rev. A – Detailed Drawings, as received 09/03/2026. 3) The Construction Management Plan dated 30 January 2026 shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development. Appeal Decision 6010046 2 Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr George Doyle against Waverley Borough Council and this is the subject of a separate Decision. Procedural Matter 3. On 17 August 2026, after the planning application and the appeal has been made, the Government issued a revised National Planning Policy Framework ‘NPPF’ which replaced the previous version. Consequently, the main parties were invited to make any comments on the revised version relevant to the appeal. Where those have been made, I have taken them into account in coming to my decision. Main Issue 4. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of 10 Nutshell Lane in relation to outlook and light on a cumulative basis. Reasons 5. The appeal site is located within the settlement of Upper Hale. It comprises a small detached chalet bungalow. It has a front garden and off road parking and a rear uphill garden. It is located on the north side of Nutshell Lane (where it runs east to west). It stands back from the Lane and no.10 is on its eastern side on a building line which sits forward of 10A’s frontage. No.10 is a semi-detached dwelling with two storeys and a pitched roof. In the wider area, there are a mix of dwelling types and design. 6. Permission is sought for the erection of single and two storey extensions including an integral garage, dormers, Juliette balcony and roof lights. Amongst these extensions would be a first floor extension to the north east (side) elevation with a front dormer and a rear dormer and a hipped roof at the north eastern end. The rear dormer would have a flat roof and the front dormer would have a gable-shaped pitched roof. The eaves would reach the common boundary line with no.10. 7. The amenity space and garden of no. 10 (other than at its front) is to its western side and northern (rear) side. The rear garden is initially reasonably wide but narrows and extends north-westwards to a similar length as no.10As. The dwelling has a two storey element which projects sidewards in the central part of the flank facing the appeal site. At first floor level there is a bedroom window which faces the appeal site. The ground floor kitchen is a kitchen diner (which is of a size that I consider should be treated as a habitable room). It has amongst other things two windows. One is south-west- facing (towards the appeal site) and one is north-west-facing towards the rear garden. 8. The back door is in the two storey side projection on the north west side and leads through to the kitchen diner. The kitchen window facing the appeal site looks out onto a patio sitting area (which is partially visible from the Lane). That area experiences overshadowing from the existing configuration of no.10A Nutshell Lane. In addition, an existing side dormer window on the appeal building looks directly onto the patio and into the kitchen. This window would no longer exist if the development was granted and implemented. 9. The ground floor north-eastern flank of the appeal building is built almost up to the common boundary with no.10. In terms of built development being brought nearer the common boundary, this would not be the case other than the eaves of the new development (which Appeal Decision 6010046 3 mark the height of the ground floor). The proposed development above ground floor level closest to the common boundary is the hip of the roof. This would slope the roof away from no.10 and would not create a sense of enclosure for the occupants of no.10 when either using their amenity space or when using the kitchen/diner. I have borne in mind the proposed front dormer cheek and pitched dormer roof as well as the proposed rear dormer cheek with a flat roof and I have borne in mind that part of the proposed development would fail the 25 degree test in the Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document in respect of one of the kitchen/diner windows (the one facing the appeal site). However, the separation distances of those from the amenity area and kitchen diner windows, and the roof slope shapes, would be sufficient in this case to avoid them causing an overbearing impact. 10. At my site visit I had access to the relevant parts of no.10’s amenity space and to the kitchen/diner and have used these observations, amongst other things, to form my conclusions. 11. Turning to the first floor bedroom window in the projection of no.10 which faces the appeal site, the proposed new roof and dormers would be visible but the angles and separation distances would prevent the outlook from that bedroom from being unduly enclosed or oppressive. I note the Council is satisfied that both the 45 degree horizontal test and the 25 degree vertical test which are in the Council’s Residential Extensions SPD (2010) are satisfied in respect of this first floor bedroom window at no.10. 12. Turning to the issue of loss of light, I have considered daylight and sunlight and potential losses experienced by the occupants of no.10 when they are inside their property and when they are using the amenity space. The proposal does not satisfy the 25 degree vertical test in respect of no.10’s kitchen/diner window which faces the appeal site (there is a second kitchen window which faces no.10’s rear garden). However, a Daylight and Sunlight Analysis is in evidence. It has been produced in accordance with the Building Research Establishment Guidance Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A guide to good practice (third edition, 2022) and assesses the relevant windows (first floor bedroom, two of the kitchen/diner windows). The assessment confirms that all three (100%) of the windows assessed meet the BRE’s guideline values for daylight either by experiencing negligible change in the Vertical Sky Component, retaining a Vertical Sky Component over 27% and/or retaining greater than 0.8 times their former value. 13. The daylight distribution results show that two (100%) of the rooms assessed meet the BRE guidelines recommendation with one room experiencing no reduction in lit area and the remaining room experiencing a nominal reduction in light well within the BRE’s guideline values. 14. In respect of sunlight, the sun-on-ground assessment shows a reduction in sunlight to the small amenity space to the side/rear of the property on the 21st March. Notwithstanding this, given its function as a dining space which is reasonably enjoyed in summer months the results of the June 21st assessment show that there are high retained values of sunlight. The Assessment shows a very small decrease in sunlight from 99.69% with the current arrangement, to 93.24% once the development has taken place. This is a modest and acceptable change. Furthermore, the main front and rear amenity areas are not expected to experience any reduction in sunlight availability as a result of the proposed development. Appeal Decision 6010046 4 15. The Council, whilst accepting the results of the Daylight and Sunlight Analysis, maintain that the relative positions of the proposed first floor extensions and No.10’s seating area are such that even a small increase in the level of overshadowing would have a materially harmful residential amenity impact on the available light to this area. Overshadowing relates to loss of sunlight and I do not agree with the Council that even a small increase in the level of overshadowing would have a materially harmful residential amenity impact on the available sunlight to the area. The Daylight and Sunlight Analysis uses established and nationally accepted benchmarks relating to sunlight and determines very clearly that in the summer months when this particular dining space is likely to be used, the area retains about 93% sunlight. In any event, it is necessary to bear in mind the available amenity space, including private amenity space that the occupants of no.10 would have available to them in the round. I noted that the area to the north of the north-facing kitchen window was also being used as a sitting out and outdoor cooking area. This area is not visible from the Lane. 16. I do not consider that there is any conflict with policy DM5 of Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 2 (adopted 2023) or policy TD1 of Part 1 (adopted 2018) or policies FNP1 and FNP2 of the Farnham Neighbourhood Plan (made 2020). NPPF policy L2(d) dealing with making effective use of land indicates substantial weight should be given to the benefits where a proposal would achieve additional floorspace within settlements and meet subparagraphs (i) (ii) and (iii) as this proposal would. Bearing that in mind, NPPF policy S4(1) (Principle of Development within settlements) indicates that development proposals should be approved unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies in the Framework. In this case the weighty benefits of granting permission are not substantially outweighed, applying that test, indicating that permission should be forthcoming in this case. NPPF policy P3 (Living conditions and pollution) is not breached. 17. Overall, I do not find that there would be material or unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of no.10 Nutshell Lane in relation to outlook from inside the property or when in the garden, nor do I find that there would be a material or unacceptable loss of daylight or sunlight causing harm when the occupants are either inside or outside the dwelling. I acknowledge that the planning concept of loss of outlook and sense of enclosure may be perceived by a neighbour as more oppressive and therefore worse, if sunlight to an affected area is materially reduced. However, in this case, I have considered the Council’s express conclusion that an alleged overbearing effect of the proposed first floor extension, an alleged loss of outlook from principal fenestration to habitable rooms and overshadowing of prime amenity space, considered cumulatively, would be sufficient to warrant refusal of planning permission and I do not agree that those cumulative effects are sufficient to warrant refusal. Other Matters 18. Having also considered all representations from other bodies and residents, I consider that the parking provided on the appeal site would be satisfactory and would not give rise to any harmful highway safety issues. The overall bulk and massing and siting of the proposal would respect the established pattern of development in the streetscene. In respect of privacy for the occupants of no.10 Nutshell Lane, there would not be unacceptable overlooking from the proposed development or a heightened perception of being overlooked. Appeal Decision 6010046 5 Conditions 19. I have considered the imposition of conditions in the light of advice in the National Planning Practice Guidance. For the avoidance of doubt, I have listed the approved plans and required development to be carried out in accordance with them. In order to protect or mitigate residential amenity and ecology during construction, I have attached a condition requiring the Construction Management Plan to be adhered to. Conclusion 20. Having considered all representations made, for the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed subject to conditions. Megan Thomas K.C. Inspector