Construction of a single-storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 January 2018 by J D Westbrook BSc(hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 11 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/17/3182196 6 Reynolds Drive, Edgware, Middlesex, HA8 5PZ  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 Hiten Wagjiani against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow.  The application Ref P/2155/17/PRIOR, dated 10 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 21 June 2017.  The development proposed is the construction of a single-storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a single-storey rear extension at 6 Reynolds Drive, Edgware, Middlesex, HA8 5PZ, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P/2155/17/PRIOR, dated 10 May 2017, and the plans submitted with it, 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: RD6-01-1001, RD6-01-1002 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. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 4 Reynolds Drive by way of light and outlook. Procedural Matter 3. The appellant contends that the application was for a prior notification and that the two adjoining neighbours were notified under the prior notification scheme but no objections were received in relation to the proposed development. An objection was received from No 16 Reynolds Drive but this is 5 doors to the west of the site. He contends therefore, that the Council should not have considered this objection since only objections from adjoining neighbours should have been considered. Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/17/3182196 2 4. From the evidence before me, on validation of the application on 10 May 2017, notification letters were sent to the owners/occupiers of the adjoining properties, Nos 4 and 8 Reynolds Road. It would appear that a notification letter was then sent to No 16 Reynolds Road on 24 May 2017, though I have no indication as to the reason for this. No 16 does not adjoin the appeal property. An objection was received from No 16 but not from the adjoining properties. The objection received related to concerns regarding possible precedent and not relating to specific amenity matters. 5. A subsequent notification letter relating to this appeal was sent to the owners/occupiers of Nos 4 and 8; the appellant’s agent; and to a named person at No 16. The letter type sent to Nos 4 and 8 was recorded as “neighbours”, whilst that to No 16 was recorded as an “objector”. The recipient type was listed as “neighbour” with regard to Nos 4 and 8, but as “other” in the case of No 16. 6. From this evidence, I find that the appellant has a very strong case in contending that no objections were received from the owners/occupiers of adjoining properties and that, based upon the terms of paragraph A.4 (7) of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, (GPDO), and the information available to me, it would appear that the proposal should not therefore have been dealt with using the prior approval approach. Reasons 7. No 6 is a semi-detached house situated on the northern side of Reynolds Road. The adjoining dwelling, No 4 has a driveway to the side and there is a further common access lane, some 2 metres wide, between its eastern boundary and the boundary of No 2. The access lane bends round the rear of the properties on the northern side of Reynolds Road, and many houses in the vicinity have large garages or outbuildings at their rear boundary with this lane. Both Nos 4 and 6 have very long rear gardens. Both houses also have wide patio doors/windows in the rear elevation. Most houses on this side of the road appear to have single-storey rear extensions, and Nos 8 and 10, to the west of the appeal property, have extensions around 4 metres in depth. 8. The proposed extension would be 6 metres in depth across the full width of the house, and it would be a maximum of 3 metres high. Since it would be sited to the north of the main dwelling, it would have very limited impact on light and overshadowing with regard to the adjoining No 4, which would, in any case, be restricted mainly to the late evening during the summer months. 9. No 4 has a long rear garden and a wide gap between its eastern elevation and the western elevation of No 2 formed by its driveway, the common access lane, and the additional driveway/garage to the side of No 2. No 2 is part of a short terrace that is constructed at a 45 degree angle to the building line formed by Nos 4 and 6, around the junction of Reynolds Road with Waltham Drive. As a consequence of this, the area to the rear of No 4 to the north and north-east has an open aspect and a very spacious character. In the light of this, I do not consider, in this case, that the proposed extension, despite its length, would have any significant detrimental impact on the outlook from the rear of No 4. In addition, I note the strong likelihood that the proposal should be considered as permitted development, as discussed above. Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/17/3182196 3 10. I conclude on this issue, therefore, that there is a strong likelihood that the proposal should be considered as permitted development, in that I have no evidence before me that there has been any objection to it from the owners or occupiers of adjoining properties. The only objection would appear to come from a property some distance away, and this does not relate to any specific amenity issues. In any case, given the circumstances of the proposal and the situation of the appeal property in relation to the adjoining property at No 4 and other properties in the vicinity, I do not consider that the proposed extension would have any significant harmful effects on the living conditions of the occupiers of that property. 11. I therefore find that the proposal would not conflict with Policy of the Council’s Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013), which requires all development to achieve a high standard of privacy and amenity and resists proposals that would be detrimental to the privacy and amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Similarly, it would not conflict with guidance in paragraph 6.26 of the Council’s Residential Design Guide SPD, which relates to loss of light and outlook to “protected” windows. Conditions 12. I have attached a condition relating to plans because it is necessary that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. I have attached a further condition relating to materials in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. J D Westbrook INSPECTOR