Extension to the rear of the property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 October 2017 by Darren Hendley BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 16 November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/17/3178060 11 Axholme Avenue, Edgware, London HA8 5BE  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph A.4 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).  The appeal is made by Mr Prakash Joshi against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow.  The application Ref P/1854/17/PRIOR, dated 11 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 22 May 2017.  The development proposed is described as an ‘extension to the rear of the property’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph A4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) for a single storey rear extension extending 6 metres beyond the original rear wall, of 3 metres maximum height and of 3 metres high to the eaves at 11 Axholme Avenue, Edgware, London HA8 5BE in accordance with the details submitted pursuant to Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph A4 (2) of the GPDO. Procedural Matters 2. The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the planning application form, excluding matters which do not relate to the initial physical description of the proposal itself. The Council considered the proposal on the basis of a single storey rear extension extending 6m beyond the original rear wall, of 3m maximum height and of 3m high to eaves. This description is also set out on the planning appeal form. I have also considered the appeal on this basis. 3. The provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development solely on the basis of its impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. My determination of this appeal has been made in the same manner. Appeal Decision APP/ M5450/D/17/3178060 2 Reasons 4. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO allows for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of the original dwelling house, subject to limitations. The proposal involves the removal of an existing rear conservatory and a garage, and the erection of a single storey L-shaped extension that would project across the rear elevation of the appeal property. The proposal falls within the limitations of the GPDO, and this is not disputed. Following the Council’s notification of the occupiers of neighbouring properties to the proposal, objections were received from the occupiers of 9 Axholme Avenue, resulting in the need, under the GPDO, for the Council’s prior approval regarding the amenity of neighbouring premises. The Council subsequently refused prior approval. 5. That part of the side elevation of the proposal that would be sited adjacent to the boundary with No 9 would be of similar length and siting to the existing conservatory. The part of the proposal that would extend out further to 6m, would be set well in from this boundary, and would be partly screened by the fence on the boundary, which is roughly 1.5m in height. The height of the proposal would also be similar to the existing conservatory. The rear elevation of No 9 does contain patio doors that are close to the boundary, and for the purposes of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Residential Design Guide (2010) (SPD), these are classified as ‘protected’ windows where careful consideration is to be given to possible loss of outlook. However, with the modest proportions of the proposal closest to the boundary and as the staggered arrangement would take the more substantial part away from the boundary, I consider it would not unduly affect the outlook from the rear of No 9, and nor would it appear obtrusive in respect of its visual impact. 6. With the path of the sun, this would not result in the proposal causing undue over-shadowing, including in the evening when the sun would be low in the sky. The exceedance of the guidance figure in the SPD of the maximum depth of the proposal would not therefore cause untoward effects in this regard. Similarly, with the relationship between two properties, it would not result in the significant loss of sunlight to the rear of No 9. With its siting and the moderate height, it would also not unduly restrict the daylight that the rear of No 9 receives from much of the open aspect over its own rear garden. Consequently, whilst the patio doors are also ‘protected’ under the SPD with regard to light, they would not suffer from loss of light to any significant degree. 7. With regards to privacy, there would be no windows or doors in the elevations facing the boundary with No. 9. The proposed french doors on the rear elevation, which would be nearest No 9, would face over the appeal property’s own rear garden, and so any overlooking of No 9’s rear garden would not be direct, with some screening also afforded by the boundary fence. Concerns raised in relation to foundation design and drainage are not matters that can be considered within the scope of the GPDO. The effects on the amenities of the occupiers of all other adjoining properties are not disputed, and I also find the effect on their occupants to be acceptable. 8. Consequently, I conclude the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the occupiers of No 9, or on any other adjoining properties. As such, it would comply with Policy DM1 of the Council of the London Borough Appeal Decision APP/ M5450/D/17/3178060 3 of Harrow Development Management Policies (2013) which states that all proposals must achieve a high standard of amenity, and that proposals that would be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers will be resisted. I also consider it would comply with the overall intention of the SPD to protect the amenities of neighbouring properties, albeit with the specific conflict I have highlighted above. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval granted. The approval granted for a single storey rear extension extending 6 metres beyond the original rear wall, of 3 metres maximum height and of 3 metres high to the eaves under Article 3 and Schedule 1, Part 1, Class A is subject to the following conditions set out in the GPDO: A.4(13), A.4(14) and A(15) which specify that the development shall be completed on or before 30th May 2019, that the developer shall notify the local planning authority in writing of the completion of the development as soon as reasonably practicable after completion, and such notification shall include the name of the developer; the address or location of the development, and the date of completion. Conditions that the proposal must be carried out in accordance with the details approved and that the materials must be of a similar appearance to the existing house are already set out in the GPDO, so they do not need also to be in my decision. Darren Hendley INSPECTOR