New proposed roof extension with 1no. dormer window further to approved application Ref. RU.19/1488

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 July 2026 by J Davis BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012135 77 Brighton Road, Addlestone, Surrey, KT15 1PG • 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 & Mrs Bhamra against the decision of Runnymede Borough Council. • The application Ref is RU.26/0288 • The development proposed is described as ‘new proposed roof extension with 1no. dormer window further to approved application Ref. RU.19/1488. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The Council has granted planning permission under application ref. RU.19/1488 for the erection of a single storey rear extension following demolition of existing conservatory, first floor side infill extension, new front boundary wall and alterations to fenestration. At my site visit I noted that a single storey rear extension had been recently constructed. The extensions to the dwelling approved under LPA ref. RU.19/1499 are shown on the submitted drawings but are not included within the description of development. 3. Whether or not the development approved under application ref. RU.19/1488 has been lawfully implemented is a matter for the main parties and is beyond the remit of this appeal. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the description of development before me, as set out in the above banner heading. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular reference to privacy. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal concerns a two-storey dwelling located on the eastern side of Brighton Road, just to the north of its junction with Crockford Park Road. The dwelling is Appeal Decision 6012135 2 one of three detached dwellings of a similar original design. These dwellings are staggered in relation to the highway, with the appeal property sited forward of the adjacent dwelling, 75 Brighton Road. 6. The proposal would raise the existing dwelling’s ridge height by about 0.495 metres. The new roof would cover the existing two-storey part of the dwelling, including the first-floor extension approved under LPA ref. RU.19/1488. A large dormer is also proposed on the rear elevation. 7. The flank elevations of Nos 73, 75 and 77 Brighton Road are prominent in views from the north, where the buildings are fairly close together and of a consistent height. The proposed increase in height of the appeal property would be noticeable in the street scene, particularly given its forward position relative to Nos 75 and 73. The works would significantly increase the height, bulk and mass of the host dwelling, making it overly prominent beside those neighbouring properties. By raising the roof and creating higher, deeper side gables, the alterations would overwhelm the host dwelling and harm its character and appearance, as well as that of the surrounding area. 8. The proposed dormer would have a width of about 5.48 metres. It would be set down from the new ridge of the dwelling and would also be positioned up from the eaves. Because it would be centrally positioned and set in from the side elevations, it would not be unduly prominent in the street scene. It would, nevertheless, be visible from surrounding gardens where it would appear overly large and bulky in relation to the host dwelling, with the large area of glazing also contributing to its visual prominence and incongruous appearance. 9. To the south is 1 Crockford Park Road, a large, detached house with attic accommodation served by several dormer windows. Although the appeal proposal would be lower overall than that dwelling, 1 Crockford Park Road is set further back from the road frontage and has a different character and appearance. It occupies a large, well-screened corner plot and therefore does not justify the appeal proposal. 10. I also acknowledge the range of building heights in the local area, including the flats which can be seen in the distance beyond the appeal site. However, these flats do not form part of the immediate context of the appeal property. The appellant has also referred me to an application1 at 10 Brighton Road where the Council approved an application to raise the roof height of the dwelling, with an associated side facing dormer. However, this dwelling is some distance from the appeal site in part of the road that has a highly mixed character and appearance. I therefore give this example little weight, as I am required to determine the appeal on its own merits. 11. I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Accordingly, it would conflict with Policy EE1 of the Runnymede Local Plan (2020) (LP), the Runnymede Design SPD (2021) (SPD) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework). Collectively and amongst other matters, these policies and guidance seek to ensure that development proposals achieve high quality and inclusive design which responds to local context and creates attractive and resilient places that make a positive contribution to enhancing the public realm. 1 LPA ref. RU.25/0083 Appeal Decision 6012135 3 Living conditions 12. The proposed rear dormer would incorporate full height double doors and windows with fixed Juliette style railings. 13. The appeal site is within an urban area, where some mutual overlooking from upper floor windows already occurs. There are existing first floor windows on the rear elevation of the appeal property which offer angled views over neighbouring gardens, particularly those of 3 and 5 Crockford Park Road which are positioned at around 90 degrees to the appeal property. 14. However, the large full-length window and door opening, together with its elevated position within the dormer on the roof slope, would be likely to enable more extensive and wider ranging views over neighbouring gardens, particularly those of Nos 3 and 5 Crockford Park Road. This would result in a loss of privacy and would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of those dwellings. The width and extent of glazing would also result in a greater perception of overlooking of neighbouring gardens, significantly reducing the quality of those spaces and causing harm to the living conditions of existing occupiers. 15. I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to privacy. It would therefore fail to comply with Policy EE1 of the LP, the SPD and the Framework which seek (amongst other matters) to ensure that development does not have adverse impacts on the amenities of neighbouring property or users. Other Matters 16. I acknowledge that the appeal proposal evolved following pre-application advice in December 2025. I understand the appellant’s frustration that the Council did not seek to engage with them during the course of the application, however this is not a matter that can influence my decision. 17. The appellant also considers that application RU.19/1488 provides a fallback position for the appeal proposal. However, regardless of whether this application has been lawfully implemented which is not within my remit to determine, my understanding is that this permission did not involve raising the roof of the dwelling or a rear dormer and accordingly is not a fallback position for the development sought under the appeal proposal. Conclusion 18. The proposal is contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Davis INSPECTOR