Single storey sunken level rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 September 2017 by Les Greenwood MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 14 September 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/N5090/D/17/3178837 56 Colin Gardens, Colindale, London NW9 6EJ  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 Michael Goulding against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barnet.  The application Ref 17/1232/HSE was refused by notice dated 26 April 2017.  The development proposed is a single storey sunken level rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey sunken level rear extension in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 17/1232/HSE, dated 15 November 2016, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 076-010A, 076-011A and 076-012A. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building, except as otherwise specified in the application. Main issues 2. The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: i) the character and appearance of the house and the local area; and ii) living conditions at the next door property, 54 Colin Gardens. Reasons Character and appearance 3. Colin Gardens is a residential street lined by terraces of 2 storey houses of modest scale and design. No 56 is typical in this respect and like the others on this side of the street its plot slopes down steeply to the rear. It has a raised patio area at the back of the house with high fencing to either side. The proposal is to replace this patio with a single storey, 4.5m deep rear extension set at a much lower level, with a new low level patio beyond. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/17/3178837 2 4. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Residential Design Guidance (RDG) states that the depth of a single storey rear extension normally considered acceptable for terraced properties is 3 metres. It further advises that there is a need to ensure that such extensions should not look too bulky and prominent compared to the size of the main building and garden. 5. Although the proposed extension would be significantly more than 3m deep, it would sit at a very low level in comparison to the existing house and neighbouring houses. It would furthermore replace an existing higher level structure. The proposed lean-to roof form would fit in well with the existing building and means that the height drops as the extension moves away from the main house, minimising its apparent bulk. The extension would not be in public view and would not look out of character in any private view. Sufficient garden space would remain so that the site would not be overdeveloped. 6. I conclude that the proposal has been well-designed to avoid any harm to the character or the appearance of the house or the local area. It therefore accords with the aims of Policy CS1 of Barnet’s Local Plan Core Strategy (CS), Policy DM01 of Barnet’s Local Plan Development Management Policies (DMP) and the RDG, to secure high quality design based on an understanding of local characteristics. The Council has also cited Policy CS NPPF of the CS. As this is a statement of the Council’s positive approach to planning decisions, I find no conflict here either. Living conditions 7. The proposed extension would sit to the south of No 54’s rear windows and garden. Its low height would, however, mean that there would be little difference in comparison to the existing situation. The rear windows at No 54 would continue to get a good level of light and outlook over the top of the proposal. The garden space would be more noticeably affected, but would retain a reasonably open and sunny outlook, despite the presence of mature trees at the end of the gardens. Overlooking of No 54’s garden would to some extent be reduced by the replacement of the existing high level patio with a much lower patio. 8. I conclude that the proposal would not significantly affect living conditions at the next door property, No 54. It therefore accords with the aims of DMP Policy DM01 and the RDG, to ensure that proposals are designed to allow for adequate daylight, sunlight, privacy and outlook for adjoining and potential occupiers and users. Other matters and conditions 9. I understand that planning permission has recently been granted for a similar extension which would be slightly taller, but not as deep. Given my conclusions above, I have not needed to consider this potential fall-back position. 10. I impose a condition specifying the relevant plans to provide certainty and another requiring the use of matching materials to protect the character and appearance of the house and the local area. Appeal Decision APP/N5090/D/17/3178837 3 Conclusion 11. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. Les Greenwood INSPECTOR