Side first floor extension to create increased bedroom size

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 July 2026 by JJ Packman MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010641 38 Byfleet Road, Surrey, New Haw, KT15 3JX • 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 and Mrs Baker and Cox against the decision of Runnymede Borough Council. • The application RU.26/0214. • The development proposed is side first floor extension to create increased bedroom size. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. Since the Council made its decision, the National Planning Policy Framework was revised in August 2026. The revised Framework is a material consideration in this appeal, and I have taken relevant national decision-making policies into account. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed first-floor side extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, having particular regard to the visual separation between Nos. 38 and 40 Byfleet Road. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling situated on Byfleet Road within an established residential area. It forms part of a frontage of similarly designed post-war semi-detached dwellings, characterised by consistent proportions, pitched roof forms and spacing. 5. A notable characteristic of this part of Byfleet Road is the visual separation between pairs of semi-detached dwellings. These gaps provide a sense of openness between buildings and contribute to the spacious appearance of the street frontage, establishing a consistent pattern and rhythm of development. Whilst some properties have been altered or extended, this characteristic has generally been retained. 6. The proposal is for a first-floor side extension projecting from the side elevation of the dwelling into the existing gap between the appeal property and No. 40. Whilst the space beneath the extension would remain open, the extension would occupy the full width of the gap between the host property and the boundary at first floor level. Appeal Decision 6010641 2 7. Although the proposal would retain an open space at ground-floor level, the first- floor extension would significantly reduce the visual separation between Nos. 38 and 40, interrupting the established spacing between the dwellings which contributes positively to the character of this part of Byfleet Road. Whilst the extension would have a pitched roof with a lower ridge than the existing dwelling and be constructed in materials to match the existing dwelling, these design features would not overcome the visual effect of the projection at first-floor level. 8. The proposal would interrupt the established spacing between the dwellings, eroding the sense of openness that contributes positively to the pattern and rhythm of development along this part of Byfleet Road. As a result, it would represent an uncharacteristic and visually intrusive addition that would detract from the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. 9. My findings are supported by the Council's Design Supplementary Planning Document (2021), which advises that two-storey and first-floor side extensions should, in most cases, retain a gap of at least one metre between the extension and the side boundary. This seeks to protect the character of established residential areas and avoid adjacent properties taking on the appearance of a terrace where this would be harmful to the character of the area. By extending to the boundary, the proposal would not accord with this guidance. 10. Taking the above into account, I find that the proposal would erode the visual separation between the appeal property and No. 40, interrupting the established pattern and rhythm of development that characterises this part of Byfleet Road. As a result, it would detract from the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policy EE1 of the Runnymede Local Plan (2020), which requires development to respond positively to its local context through high-quality design, the Runnymede Design Supplementary Planning Document (2021), and Policy DP3(1) of the Framework, which requires proposals to respond to their context. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. JJ Packman INSPECTOR