Proposed two-storey side extension, ground floor rear extension and first floor rear extension, including conversion of existing garage into habitable room, with replacement pitched roof to front projection

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 July 2026 by J Davis BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010214 Kishla, Stonny Croft, Ashtead, Surrey, KT21 1SQ • 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 D. Kirby and Ms L. Treadaway against the decision of Mole Valley District Council. • The application Ref is MO/2026/00146. • The development proposed is described as ‘Proposed two-storey side extension, ground floor rear extension and first floor rear extension, including conversion of existing garage into habitable room, with replacement pitched roof to front projection’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal concerns a two-storey detached dwelling located at the junction of Stonny Croft and Bramley Way. It forms one of three detached houses in Stonny Croft that appear to be of the same original design but have subsequently been altered and extended. The wider area, including Bramley Way, comprises a mix of house types and styles, including detached, semi-detached and terraced houses and bungalows resulting in the area having a mixed character and appearance overall. 4. The appeal property has been extended by way of a first-floor extension above the garage on its southern side which is set down from the main ridge of the dwelling. There is a conservatory to the rear of the garage, and a further conservatory on the main rear elevation of the dwelling. 5. The Council’s Extending Your House Supplementary Planning Document (2025) (SPD), whilst non-statutory provides useful design guidance. It states that two storey extensions should normally appear smaller in scale and proportion to the main dwelling and should be set down from the ridge of the existing house and set back from the front elevation. It also advises that when on a corner plot, extra care needs to be given to both elevations that face the streetscene. Appeal Decision 6010214 2 6. The proposed two storey rear extension would have a depth of about 4 metres and would span much of the width of the existing dwelling, excluding its side garage and conservatory. The eaves and ridge height of the proposed extension would match that of the host dwelling such that it would be highly dominant rather than subservient in appearance. In addition, the proposed first-floor rear window would be offset to one side, leaving a plain expanse of brickwork that would dominate the rear elevation and harm the dwelling’s appearance. A further first-floor extension is proposed above the side conservatory, but the proposed rear-facing dormer would appear cluttered and cramped, both on the roof slope and in relation to the two storey rear extension. 7. The proposed side/rear extension would be about 4.6 metres wide at ground floor level and set around 3 metres in from the side boundary. Its first-floor element would be about 2.5 metres wide and set well back from the host dwelling’s main front wall, but it would extend beyond the original rear elevation. Although the extension would sit slightly below the main ridge, the large, wide gable on its side elevation would be especially prominent and would not appear subservient to the host dwelling. 8. Taken together, the proposed extensions would substantially increase the scale, bulk and mass of the existing dwelling. Given their lack of subservience, they would visually overwhelm the host dwelling’s scale and proportions, causing harm to its character and appearance. 9. I acknowledge that there is some screening along Bramley Way, particularly when approaching from the east, but this cannot be relied upon to screen the proposal in the long term. The extensions would be highly prominent from the footways on both sides of Bramley Way, particularly when viewed level with the site, where they would appear as overly dominant and incongruous additions to the dwelling, harming the character and appearance of the Bramley Way street scene. 10. The proposal would therefore have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. It would fail to comply with Policy EN4 of the Mole Valley Local Plan (2020-2039) (2024), Policies AS-H5 and AS En-3 of the Ashtead Neighbourhood Development Plan (2017), the guidance within the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework 2024. Amongst other matters, these policies and guidance seek development which is of a high-quality design that makes a positive contribution to local character, and for development to be of an appropriate scale, height, massing, proportion and form and to include architectural detailing that responds to detailing on the host and/or surrounding buildings. Other Matters 11. I acknowledge that the proposal would result in investment in the property and would provide improved living accommodation for the appellants. I also note that the Council raised no objections in terms of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, highways or flood risk. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm that I have identified above Appeal Decision 6010214 3 Conclusion 12. I have found that the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and material considerations do not outweigh that finding. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Davis INSPECTOR