Re-construction or re-modelling of, and extension to, existing side return single storey rear kitchen extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 October 2017 by H Baugh-Jones BA(Hons) DipLA MA CMLI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 03 November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/H5960/D/17/3178061 25 Burmester Road, London SW17 0JN  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 and Mrs Kemp against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Wandsworth.  The application Ref 2017/0521, dated 27 January 2017, was refused by notice dated 24 March 2017.  The development proposed is re-construction or re-modelling of, and extension to, existing side return single storey rear kitchen extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for re-construction or re-modelling of, and extension to, existing side return single storey rear kitchen extension at 25 Burmester Road, London SW17 0JN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2017/0521, dated 27 January 2017, 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: existing Boundary profiles east and west, Rear elevation, Roof and Ground floor plans by John Kemp Associates dated 25 January 2017; proposed Boundary profiles east and west, Rear elevation, Roof and Ground floor plans by John Kemp Associates dated 25 January 2017. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of no 23 Burmester Road with regard to light and outlook. Reasons 3. As part of a reconfiguring of the rear projection of the appeal property, part of the proposed extension would be about half the width of the dwelling’s rear elevation and extend about 6.7m along the boundary shared with next door at no 23. The eaves height on its northern side would be about 2.8m. Its mono- pitched roof would slope away from next door. 4. At my site visit, I observed that there is an extension at no 23 projecting a similar distance to the rear as that proposed in this case. Its roof slopes away Appeal Decision APP/H5960/D/17/3178061 2 from the appeal property and has a substantial roof light that spans almost all of the roof’s southern side. 5. The highest part of the proposed extension’s roof would be along its southern side, which given the sun’s path would be likely to have some diminishing effect on the amount of direct sunlight penetrating through next door’s roof light. However, because of the proposed roof slope and that of next door combined with the orientation of the dwellings, any blocking of direct sunlight would only be likely to occur for a very short period during early morning. After that, direct sunlight would be blocked out by the main part of the appeal property itself. On balance, I do not consider that there would be a material detrimental effect on no 23’s occupiers with regard to sunlight. 6. Furthermore, the roof light at no 23 is of sufficient size in my view to prevent any material reduction in the amount of ambient light reaching the room to which it relates, particularly when taking the proposed roof slope of the extension into account along with that at no 23. 7. The proposed eaves would be higher than those of the extension at no 23. It is therefore likely that when looking out of the roof light, it would be possible for no 23’s occupiers to see the very uppermost part of the wall forming the proposed extension’s northern flank. However, in my view occupiers are more likely to be looking out of side and rear windows rather than a roof light which does not serve the same purpose in providing direct views of the spaces around the building. Notwithstanding this, any obscuring of part of such views would be minimal and acceptable. 8. For the above reasons, I do not consider that there would be a material detrimental effect on the living conditions of no 23’s occupiers with regard to light or outlook. Accordingly, I do not find the proposal to be in conflict with policy DMS 1 of the Development Management Polices Document (2016), which amongst other things seeks to ensure that development does not harm the amenity of occupiers/users and nearby properties including through unsatisfactory outlook, or sunlight/daylight. Conditions 9. In addition to the standard time limit, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. Conclusion 10. For the above reasons and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal succeeds. Hayden Baugh-Jones Inspector