Single storey side and rear extensions following demolition of existing conservatory

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 November 2017 by H Butcher BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 24th November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/17/3177938 64 Buckingham Road, Ham, Surrey, TW10 7EQ  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 Miss R Twite against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames.  The application Ref 17/1019/HOT, dated 27 February 2017, was refused by notice dated 17 May 2017.  The development proposed is single storey side and rear extensions following demolition of existing conservatory. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the single storey rear extension. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the single storey side extension and planning permission is granted for a single storey side extension at 64 Buckingham Road, Ham, Surrey, TW10 7EQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/1019/HOT, dated 27 February 2017, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no 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: Site Location Plan, DOK/16/RT/01, DOK/16/RT/02. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the single storey side extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the single storey rear extension on the living conditions of occupiers of 62 Buckingham Road, having particular regard to matters of outlook. Reasons 3. The Council refer to 64 Buckingham Road as an end of terrace property and my site visit also confirmed this. However, when referring to their House Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (May 2015) (SPD), in respect of single storey rear extensions the Council apply the maximum projection of 3.5m for semi-detached properties. However, the Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/17/3177938 2 guideline depth for a single storey rear extension on a terrace property, as set out in the SPD, is 3m. The Council provide no justification for taking this approach. I therefore find that the proposed rear extension at 3.55m deep would clearly conflict with the SPD guidelines for single storey rear extensions for terrace properties. 4. I also have concerns over the height of the rear extension which would sit right on the shared boundary with No 62. The roof would be mono pitched and where it would meet the rear elevation of the property it would extend to just under the first floor windows. No 62 has a window serving a habitable room in the rear elevation immediately adjacent to the shared boundary with No 64. This window would therefore be very close to the highest point of the rear extension. 5. Taking the above points together I consider that in this case the combined depth, height and proximity of the proposed rear extension to the neighbouring property’s habitable window would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of its occupants in terms of a loss of outlook and sense of enclosure. The appellant argues that the shared boundary is angled away from No 62 which reduces the impact of the development. However, the angle increases as you move away from the rear elevations of the properties. As I have found harm to the window immediately to the rear of No 62 the angle of the boundary does little to mitigate this. 6. For the above reasons the proposed single storey rear extension would conflict with both the SPD, and Policies CP7 of the Core Strategy (2009) and DM DC 5 of the Development Management Plan (2011) which seek to protect the amenity of adjoining properties from, amongst other things, unreasonable visual intrusion. 7. The appellant points out that a single storey rear extension could be erected at the appeal property without the need for planning permission. Be that as it may, in my view, any such extension would not be as high as the proposal before me. Whilst allowing the rear extension would improve the overall quality of living space at the property this does not outweigh the harm I have found. Any existing boundary treatments cannot be considered permanent therefore this does not alter my findings above. 8. An appeal decision in a different road in Twickenham is referred to (ref APP/L5810/D/16/3160836). I have not been provided with full details of this so I am unable to make any meaningful comparisons, although I do note it concerned a rear extension which was set off the boundary by approximately 0.8m. It is therefore not directly comparable to the appeal before me. I note there have been no objections from neighbours. However, each appeal must be determined on its own planning merits. Other matter 9. The proposal also includes a single storey side extension. This would be modest in size and tucked behind an existing front porch, well away from any neighbouring windows. I therefore find no harm in respect of this element of the proposal and I note the Council raised no objection in this regard either. The appellant requests that a split decision be considered. As the proposed side and rear extensions are both physically and functionally severable I consider a split decision would be a logical outcome. Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/17/3177938 3 Conclusion and conditions 10. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed in relation to the single storey side extension. However, in relation to the single storey rear extension the appeal should be dismissed. 11. In respect of the single storey side extension I have attached the standard time limit condition and a plans condition as this provides certainty. I have also added a condition concerning materials to ensure a satisfactory appearance. Hayley Butcher INSPECTOR