For part first floor rear extension Decision

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 November 2016 by Gareth W Thomas BSc(Hons) MSc(Dist) PGDip MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 30 November 2016 Appeal Ref: APP/G5750/D/16/3154894 102 Tunmarsh Lane, Plaistow, London E13 9NG  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mrs C Morgan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Newham.  The application Ref 16/00274/HH, dated 01 February 2016, was refused by notice dated 28 April 2016.  The development proposed is for part first floor rear extension Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part first floor rear extension at 102 Tunmarsh Lane, Plaistow, London E13 9NG in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 16/00274/HH, dated 1 February 2016 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 accordance with the following approved plans: JND/0660/22 and JND/0680/23. 3) Notwithstanding condition 2, the shower room and rear bedroom shall be inter-changed so that the bedroom is located so that it makes use of the existing window at first floor. Preliminary matter 2. Policy SP8 of the Proposed Submission Draft Detailed Sites and Policies Development Plan Document (DPD) was referenced in the decision notice. Since then, the Council has adopted the DPD and at SP8 the DPD repeats almost exactly the wording of the submission draft version. I have considered this appeal on the basis of the adopted policy. 3. As part of the appeal process, the appellant has suggested a minor alteration to the internal configuration of the property. Simply, the proposal would now change the positioning of the bathroom at first floor so that the second bedroom would benefit from the existing window at first floor. This aspect is not considered fundamental to the proposal and I do not believe the Council would be prejudiced by this minor alteration, which if agreed could be dealt with by way of a condition. I return to this later in this decision. Appeal Decision APP/G5750/D/16/3154894 2 Main Issue 4. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a narrow mid-terrace 2-storey house in a tightly knit residential area of long terraced properties. Several properties in the same terrace have been extended and externally altered; a dormer is currently being built in the roof of the host property under permitted development rights. Consequently, there is a considerable variety in the built form at the rear of the terrace to which this property belongs. 6. The proposal would see the erection of a modest extension over part of the existing ground floor flat roofed extension. The extension would project some 3m from the rear elevation and incorporate a mono-pitched roof. The internal space would be re-arranged at first floor and with this extension, the proposal would provide a third bedroom. I would agree that the shower room and bedroom 2 should be changed around so that the bedroom benefits from the existing window at first floor. Thus in this regard the proposal would help provide a good quality of living conditions for its future occupants. 7. The appellant draws attention to other properties within close proximity that have seen similar extensions built to the rear without detriment either to the street scene or living conditions. The details of these developments are not before me; however it is the effects of this proposal that is of relevance. I do not consider that the other examples cited establish any precedent. 8. I do not consider that the proposal would disrupt the symmetry to the rear of this terrace and for the most part the extension would only be viewed from the rear of properties on the street running parallel with the terrace containing the host property. Given its relative small scale, the extension would not detract from the architectural form of Tunmarsh Lane terrace and would echo other similar extensions in the area. Accordingly, the mono pitched roof extension would not appear unsympathetic in its context and would remain subservient to the host property. Thus, this proposal would result in a satisfactory appearance to the rear and would not harm the character and appearance of the area. 9. Consequently, the development would accord with policies S6, SP1, SP2, SP3 and H1 of the Newham Core Strategy (CS), policies 7.1, 7.4, 7.5 and 7.6 of the London Plan, which expect amongst other things, a high quality of design in new development. It would also accord with Policy H17 of the Unitary Development Plan which requires developments to respect the character of the surrounding area and Policy SP8 of the DPD, which sets out to achieve neighbourly developments thereby echoing the advice contained within the Council’s ‘Altering and Extending Your Home’ Supplementary Planning Guidance. It would not singularly conflict with Policy S1 of the CS as this relates to strategic development in the Borough and therefore has little relevance to this appeal. Conditions 10. In accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance and the Framework, I have attached conditions relating to commencement of development within the Appeal Decision APP/G5750/D/16/3154894 3 prescribed period and specified the approved drawings in the interests of providing certainty. Given that the internal space could provide better living conditions for existing occupiers, I have attached a condition requiring the shower room and bedroom to be inter-changed as offered by the appellant. This is in the interests of residential amenity. Conclusion 11. For the reasons stated, and taking into account all other matters raised, this appeal is allowed. Gareth W Thomas INSPECTOR