Demolition of existing garage and erection of lower ground, ground floor and first floor side and rear extension, and car port

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 July 2026 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010038 122A Hurstwood Manor, Upper Chobham Road, Camberley, Surrey, GU15 1EJ. • 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 A Belnik against the decision of Surrey Heath Borough Council. • The application Ref is 26/0131/FFU. • The development proposed is the demolition of existing garage and erection of lower ground, ground floor and first floor side and rear extension, and car port. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matters 2. From the evidence I note that there is a history of applications and appeals in respect of various proposals to extend and alter the existing dwelling. My attention has been particularly drawn, by the parties to a previous application Ref: 25/0463/FFU allowed at appeal Ref: APP/D3640/D/25/3368720 and a subsequent planning permission Ref: 25/1094/FFU. While I shall consider this appeal based on the merits of the current proposal as determined by the Council and my site visit, I shall also have regard to the above applications and appeal. Main Issue 3. I consider the main issue to be the effect of the design of the proposed development on the architectural integrity of the host property and thereby the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. Hurstwood Manor is a substantial, contemporary styled detached dwelling with accommodation over four floors. The lower ground floor, with access to the rear, is set at a lower level than the ground floor accessed from the front of the dwelling. 5. The house is situated within the Wooded Hills Character Area and there is a Tree Preservation Order (Ref: TPO/65/89) (TPO) beyond the rear boundary of the site. Nevertheless, the site lies within an urban area where development is considered acceptable in principle. 6. The surrounding area is generally characterised by other large dwellings on large, irregular shaped and mature verdant plots. The surrounding houses reflect an eclectic mix of architectural styles. Appeal Decision 6010038 2 7. The appellant proposes the demolition of the garage and the construction of a lower ground floor, ground floor and first floor side and rear extension together with a detached carport. 8. The Council found the proposed carport would, due to amongst other things its open sided design to be acceptable here. From what I have seen and read I would agree with its findings in respect of this element of the proposal. 9. The dwelling while located relatively close to the site’s north-eastern boundary is set some distance in from the site’s south-western boundary. When the house is approached via the drive therefore there is currently a high degree of visual openness between it and the surrounding woodland that characterises the area. 10. The proposed three-storey side extension would, unlike the previously side and rear extension, as approved, be built much closer to the south-western boundary. A gap of about 3.5 metres or so would be maintained. 11. The side extension when viewed from the front would appear as a well-mannered addition. The ridge line of the proposed extension would be set lower than that of the main house and the extension would be set back from the street façade. However, it would nevertheless, by reason of its increased width, extended hip and overall large expanse of roof add significantly to the visual mass of the property. 12. In addition, the extension as now proposed would serve to visually infill to some greater extent the current gap to the south-western boundary. The development would therefore diminish the openness and woodland character as seen from the approach drive to the house. As identified by the appellant, due to the length of the drive, the loss of the gap would not be so noticeable from the Upper Chobham Road as it would be when seen from closer to the house. 13. I accept that the roofs of the rear extension would be screened by the proposed front extension. Nevertheless, due to the complex amalgam of unrelated roof forms, necessitated by the rear extension’s proposed width and depth, it would when viewed from the rear appear as a contrived and alien form of development that would bear very little relation to the established design of the host property. As designed therefore the proposed extension would cause serious harm to the architectural character and appearance of the host property. 14. I conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed development when taken as a whole would, due to its three-dimensional form, overall massing and complex appearance, appear incongruous and out of keeping with the architectural style and form of the host property. It would be a visually dominant and cramped form of development and one that would erode the spacing to the side boundary and thereby diminishes the spacious and verdant character of the area. 15. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the objectives of the principles of the Surrey Heat Development Framework 2006-2028 - Western Urban Area Character Supplementary Planning Document (May 2012) WH1, WH2 and WH6, the Surrey Heath Residential Design Guide – Supplementary Planning Document (September 2017) 10.1, 10.3 and 10.5 and the National Planning Policy Framework as they seek, along with other things, to secure high quality design that has due regard to established character of the area. Appeal Decision 6010038 3 Other Matters 16. I note the Council found the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers and would not raise any transport or highways concerns. Based on what I have seen and read I would not seek to disagree with its findings on these issues. However, the absence of harm is a neutral factor in my considerations and, as such, I have given these matters very little weight in my decision. 17. I appreciate that the previous planning approval Ref:25.1094 is still extant and therefore represents a viable fallback position. However, I am not persuaded that for the reasons I have found this proposal unacceptable that it should in this case weigh against my conclusions in respect of this appeal. Conclusions 18. For the reasons set out above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh the conflict. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. Philip Willmer INSPECTOR