Erection of ground floor rear extension/2 storey side extension with first floor rear extension with roof over

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 October 2017 by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 20 October 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/J1535/D/17/3175105 2 Alderton Hall Lane, Loughton IG10 3HN  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 Mr P Minhas against the decision of Epping Forest District Council  The application Ref PL/EPF/3090/16, dated 22 November 2016, was refused by notice dated 29 March 2017  The development proposed is the erection of ground floor rear extension/2 storey side extension with first floor rear extension with roof over. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of ground floor rear extension/2 storey side extension with first floor rear extension with roof over at 2 Alderton Hall Lane, Loughton IG10 3HN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PL/EPF/3090/16, dated 22 November 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: Location Plan; 2ALDERTON/PL03C and 2ALDERTON/PL05E. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building Procedural Matter 2. The appeal has progressed in the name of Mr P Minhas as the owner of the appeal property rather than the name of the agent which was stated on the application form as the applicant. Main Issues 3. It is considered that the main issues are the effects of the proposed development on (a) the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene and (b) the living conditions of the occupiers of 71A Alderton Hill. Appeal Decision APP/J1535/D/17/3175105 2 Reasons Character and Appearance 4. The property is a detached 2-storey dwelling with a detached single storey garage situated within a primarily residential area which includes a mix of houses and bungalows of varying types and sizes. The property is sited close to the junction of Alderton Hill and Alderton Hall Lane. The other properties adjacent to this junction are predominantly larger detached dwellings situated within spacious and verdant plots. This character changes along Alderton Hall Lane with the density of development increasing but the spacious appearance is retained by open front gardens. 5. The property is the middle dwelling of a group of 3 similarly designed properties which have a staggered siting. By reason of the property being sited forward of 4 Alderton Hall Lane and the surrounding topography, the southern elevation of the property is noticeable from the road whereas the northern elevation is screened by 71A Alderton Hill. Although details have not been provided, there is reference to a prior approval for an 8-metre single storey addition to the rear of the property. 6. The proposed development includes part 2-storey and part single storey side and rear extensions which would result in a change from a gable to a crown roof. As part of the appeal scheme the existing single storey garage would be demolished to accommodate the proposed side extension. Cumulatively the proposed development would result in a significant increase in both the footprint and floorspace of the host property. However, the size of the plot is such that the resulting property would not result in a cramped form of development which would fail to complement the character of the streetscene and the other detached properties adjacent to the junction. 7. The proposed side elevation would possess a lower ridge height than the host property. The first floor of the proposed extension would also be set back from the front elevation of the host property and the shared boundary with No. 4. A gap would be maintained at first floor level between the proposed side extension and No. 4. When viewed from the road, the proposed side extension would appear a subservient addition to the host property. Although it would be wider than both Nos. 4 and 71A, the form and scale of the enlarged property would not represent an incongruous addition to the streetscene nor create a dual frontage because the side extension would be set back from the front elevation. 8. From the road, there would be a view of the proposed side extension which would project rearwards of the original property as part of the rear extension. Further, the proposed crown roof would be visible. However, because of its lower height and limited rearwards projection the side elevation of the proposed extension would appear as a subservient addition to the property. Further, the flat roof elements of the proposed crown roofs of the main dwelling and side extension would be limited in size and would not materially add to the overall bulk of the property. When viewed from the road, the dominant feature would remain the roofslopes rather than the flat roof elements. For these reasons, and because of the partial screening of the enlarged property afforded by No. 4 due to the staggered siting, the resulting property would neither appear an incongruous addition to the streetscene nor Appeal Decision APP/J1535/D/17/3175105 3 materially disrupt the harmony or character of this group of 3 properties, including by reason of both form and roof treatment. 9. On this issue it is concluded that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene and, as such, it would not conflict with Policy DBE10 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan, including the Local Plan Alterations (LP). Amongst other matters this policy requires residential extensions to complement the appearance of the streetscene and to have regard to the existing building including its scale, form and roof treatment. This policy is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework’s (the Framework) core principle of securing high quality design. Living Conditions 10. The Council has not specifically objected to the appeal scheme by reason of unacceptable harm being caused to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 4. Although I have carefully noted the concerns of the occupiers of No. 4, because of the siting and design of the proposed development, there are no reasons for me to depart from the Council’s assessment. 11. The proposed rear extension at both ground and first floors would be sited close to the shared boundary with No. 71A which is at a higher ground level than the appeal property. Adjacent to the shared boundary is the garage of No. 71A and, by reason of the staggered siting, the 2-storey side wall of the property already projects approximately 3.5 metres along the shared boundary beyond the garage. The first floor element of the proposed rear extension would increase the length of the projection by circa 2 metres. 12. Within the rear elevation of No. 71A are openings serving habitable rooms. However, by reason of the main dwelling being located some 5 metres from the shared boundary and the angled views from the windows, the proposed rear extension would not cause a material change in the outlook. Further, the siting of the enlarged property would not result in the proposed development being an overbearing or visually intrusive form of development when viewed from these windows. 13. From the garden of No. 71A, views towards the ground floor element of the proposed rear extension would be limited to part of the roof projecting above the existing boundary fence. However, the first floor element of the proposed rear extension would be noticeable from the garden. 14. LP Policy DBE9 refers to extensions not resulting in an excessive loss of amenity for neighbouring properties, including taking into account their visual impact. By reason of the siting of the proposed extension, the modest addition to the massing of the existing 2-storey flank wall and the size of the rear garden of No. 71A, the appeal scheme would neither be an overbearing form of development nor result in a significant increase in the sense of enclosure when viewed from the garden. There would not, therefore, be an excessive loss of amenity for the occupiers of No. 71A by reason of visual impact. 15. The occupiers of No. 71A have raised concerns regarding loss of daylight, sunlight and privacy but these are not matters to which the Council has objected to the appeal scheme. Based upon the observations made during the site visit, there are no reasons for me to depart from the Council’s assessment. Appeal Decision APP/J1535/D/17/3175105 4 16. Accordingly, on this issue it is concluded that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of 71A Alderton Hill and, as such, it would not conflict with LP Policy DBE9 and the Framework’s core principle of securing a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Other Matters 17. The occupiers of the neighbouring properties have identified that there is a covenant which applies to the appeal property and have raised concerns regarding the potential impact of the proposed development on a sewer. These are matters for others to consider rather than for me to determine as part of this appeal. Conditions 18. The Council has suggested a number of conditions in the event this appeal is allowed and they have been assessed against the tests in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. A condition is necessary to require the use of external material to match the host property to assist with the proposed development’s assimilation into the streetscene. Further, for reasons of proper planning and for the avoidance of doubt, a condition is necessary for the proposed development to be erected in accordance with the submitted drawings (as amended during the determination of the application). Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters, it is concluded that this appeal should be allowed. D J Barnes INSPECTOR