Double storey side, single storey front & double/single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 November 2017 by Lesley Coffey BA Hons BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 1st December 2917 Appeal Ref: APP/H2265/D/17/3182032 51 Mill Street, West Malling ME19 6BU  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 Wilmot against the decision of Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council.  The application Ref TM/17/01422/FL, dated 25 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 28 July 2017.  The development proposed is a double storey side, single storey front & double/single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to side and rear extensions. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the single storey front extension and planning permission is granted for a single storey front extension at 51 Mill Street, West Malling ME19 6BU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref TM/17/01422/FL , dated 25 May 2017 and 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 materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans[so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted: R.503 existing and proposed floor plans and R.503 existing and proposed elevations. Main Issue 2. I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring properties with particular reference to visual prominence and privacy. Reasons 3. The Council do not object to the proposed front extension and I have considered the proposal accordingly. Appeal Decision APP/H2265/D/17/3182032 2 4. The appeal property occupies a corner position at the junction of Mill Street and Cottenham Close. The rear boundary is adjoined by 2A Cottenham Close, a detached bungalow, which I understand was built on part of the former rear garden of the appeal property. The garden to 2A Cottenham Close extends up to the boundary with the appeal property which has a relatively short rear garden. 5. It is proposed to demolish the existing carport and conservatory. The proposed two storey side and rear extension would be about 7 metres in width and would extend about 3.6 metres from the rear elevation of the original dwelling. The Council suggest that it would reduce the separation between the two properties to about 12 metres. I assume that this figure is the distance between the proposed extension the flank elevation of 2A Cottenham Close, rather than the depth of the remaining garden. Based on my observations at the time of my visit, and the information on the plans submitted by the appellant, the rear garden would appear to be considerably shorter than12 metres. 6. An extension of the height and width proposed, in such close proximity to the boundary with 2A Cottenham Close would have an obtrusive and dominating impact on the outlook of the occupants of that property and would also detract from their enjoyment of their garden. 7. Although it is not uncommon for minimum garden lengths to be about 10 metres, this is generally where a garden is adjoined by a garden of a similar length and provides an overall separation of about 20 metres. In this case, even if the Council’s figures are correct, the separation between the two properties would fall considerably below this figure. However, as I noted above, it would seem that the rear garden of the appeal property is considerably less than 12 metres in length. 8. There would be two first floor windows facing 2A Cottenham Close. One would be a bathroom and therefore would be obscure glazed. The other would serve the master bedroom and would include full length windows with a Juliette balcony. Due to the proximity of the proposed extension to the bungalow and garden at 2A Cottenham Close the proposal would give rise to an unacceptable loss of privacy. I appreciate that the appellant may be able to construct a rear dormer window within the original roof slope that would also overlook 2A Cottenham Close. However, this would be at a greater distance from the boundary with 2A and would not have such an overbearing effect as the appeal proposal. 9. I therefore conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupants of 2A Cottenham Close and would fail to comply with policy p4/12 of the Tonbridge and Malling Local Plan 1998 which amongst other matters seeks to safeguard the residential amenity of neighbouring properties, as well as policy CP24 of the Core Strategy (adopted 2007) which require all new development to be designed to respect the site and its surroundings. 10. The Council does not object to the single storey front extension. I consider this to be acceptable in terms of its effect on the character and appearance of the locality. I consider that the two parts of the proposal are clearly severable, being both physically and functionally independent. I therefore propose to issue a split decision in this case. Appeal Decision APP/H2265/D/17/3182032 3 Conditions 11. I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in the light of the advice at paragraphs 203 and 206 of the NPPF and the PPG. In order to safeguard the character and appearance of the surrounding area I agree that the proposed extension should be finished in materials to match the existing building. For the same reason I also agree that the extension should be implemented in accordance with the submitted plans, in so far as they relate the single storey front extension. Conclusions 12. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part. Having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal in relation the two storey side and rear extension should be dismissed 13. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal in relation to the single storey front extension should be allowed. Lesley Coffey INSPECTOR