4.5m back extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 September 2017 by Elaine Gray MA(Hons) MSc IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 12 October 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/T5150/D/17/3179817 872 North Circular Road, Neasden, London NW2 7TE  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 Donocom Limited against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Brent.  The application Ref 17/1269, dated 21 March 2017, was refused by notice dated 22 May 2017.  The development is described as ‘4.5m back extension’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular reference to visual impact, and the on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons Living conditions 3. The appeal site is a two storey dwelling located in a terrace of similar buildings. The development comprises a flat-roofed rear extension which projects to a depth of approximately 4.5m. I am satisfied that the amount of natural light at No 874, which adjoins the appeal site, would not be affected, and that there would be no effect on the privacy of the neighbours at No 874 as there are no side openings within the development. 4. However, on the ground floor to the rear of No 874 is a main window which is close to the boundary with No 872. Between the properties is fairly low fence, which would have allowed some openness towards the appeal site. At approximately 3m in height and 4.5m in depth, a large proportion of the new wall is visible above the fence, giving rise to a substantial visual impact and reducing the openness from the rear of the house in this direction. Similarly, the garden area immediately to the rear of No 874 has been significantly more enclosed by the blank side wall of the new extension. 5. I accept that an extension of this height could be built to a depth of up to 3m without the need for planning permission. However, I observed that the amenity area available at No 874 is narrow, and is curtailed by the presence of an outbuilding at the end of the garden. Whilst views along the garden remain, Appeal Decision APP/T5150/D/17/3179817 2 the rear outdoor space provides the only amenity area available to the occupants of the property, and I do not consider it to be particularly generous. 6. In that context, I consider that an additional depth of 1.5m over and above that which would be permitted development is significant in this case. As a result, the development has given rise to a materially more detrimental effect on living conditions in terms of enclosure and overbearing than would a 3m extension in this location. 7. It is the combination of these factors that leads me to conclude that the development unacceptably harms the living conditions of occupiers of No 874. It thus conflicts with Policy DMP 1of the London Borough of Brent Local Plan Development Management Policies (DMP), insofar as it requires that development should provide high levels of amenity. 8. The Council’s document entitled ‘Altering and Extending Your Home – SPG 5’ (SPG) sets out guidelines for domestic development, including single storey rear extensions. I agree that the document is now of some age, which reduces the weight I can give it. Nonetheless, I consider that the general principles set out in the SPG remain valid, such as the requirement that extensions should preserve the amenity of neighbours. As such, the development would conflict with this aim, which is also as requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework. 9. I accept that the objection received in relation to the development did not raise issues of amenity. However, this does not outweigh the duty to assess proposals for development against the relevant local and national planning policies. Therefore, this circumstance has not led me to a different conclusion on this matter. Character and appearance 10. DMP Policy DMP 1states, amongst other things, that development should complement the locality. In this case, I saw that the rear elevations of the appeal site and its neighbours have been subject to a significant degree of alteration and extension, including large box dormer windows, and a sizeable single storey extension at 870 North Circular Road. As a result, the appearance of the rear elevations of the terrace in the vicinity is poor. 11. The new extension has been constructed in materials so as to blend visually with the existing property, and its design generally reflects that of the appeal property. I am therefore satisfied that the appearance of the rear of No 872, and that of the surrounding area, has not been materially worsened by the development. I therefore find no conflict with the requirements of DMP Policy DMP 1. Conclusion 12. Despite my finding that the development would not harm the character and appearance of the area, it would unacceptably harm the living conditions of neighbours. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Elaine Gray INSPECTOR