New rear extension and rebuild existing garage to form habitable room

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 January 2018 by Graham M Garnham BA BPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 18 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N5660/D/17/3183222 6 Rosedene Avenue, London, SW16 2LT  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 Nicol against the decision of London Borough of Lambeth Council.  The application Ref 17/02490/FUL, dated 24 January 2017, was refused by notice dated 5 July 2017.  The development proposed is new rear extension and rebuild existing garage to form habitable room. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new rear extension and rebuild existing garage to form habitable room at 6 Rosedene Avenue, London, SW16 2LT in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/02490/FUL, dated 24 January 2017, 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 materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development 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: numbers GN01, GN02, GN03 Rev A, GN04 Rev A, and Ordnance Survey location and site plans. Main Issues 2. I consider that these are the effects of the proposal on firstly, the character and appearance of the property; and secondly, the living conditions of the occupiers of no.4 Rosedene Avenue, with respect to loss of outlook and an overbearing effect. Reasons 3. The proposal involves a full width, ground floor rear extension. Partly to the rear of this, and physically separate from it, would be the former detached single garage, rebuilt as a habitable room. Appeal Decision APP/N5660/D/17/3183222 2 First main issue – effect on character and appearance 4. The extension would be of a lean-to form. It would join the host house at about midway between the sill of the first floor bedroom window and the present level of the top of ground floor window. It would project 4.95 metres, to an outer eaves line just above the height of the rebuilt garage (to which the Council does not object). I estimate that the depth of projection would be a little over half the depth of the house but, given the relative narrowness of the gap between between the side wall of no.6 and that of its neighbour, the relationship would not be readily apparent. The height would clearly be subservient to the two storey house, and leave a clear space below the first floor window. Notwithstanding the full width of the extension, I consider that it would not dominate the host house or appear to be out of scale with it. A planning condition to require the use of matching materials would be needed to ensure a compatible appearance. 5. Subject to this planning condition, I conclude that the proposal would relate satisfactorily to the character and appearance of the property. It would accord with Policy Q11 in the Lambeth Local Plan (2015), which requires extensions to be subordinate and not unacceptably dominate or overwhelm the host building. Second main issue – effect on living conditions 6. The Council has not identified any harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of no.8, and I have no reason to take a different view. 7. There is a lean-to conservatory at no.4, on the common boundary with the appeal site. The proposed extension would project around 2 metres beyond it. It would impinge on the view from inside the conservatory, but I consider that the limited amount of projection would not unduly effect the neighbour’s outlook. The extension would be a little higher than the conservatory, but not so much as to have an overbearing effect. 8. I conclude that the proposal would not materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of no.4 Rosedene Avenue, with respect to loss of outlook and an overbearing effect. There would be no conflict with Local Plan Policy Q2, which requires adequate outlooks to be provided while avoiding any undue sense of enclosure. Overall conclusion 9. I have found in favour of the proposal with respect to both main issues. In addition to the materials condition (paragraph 4 above), it is necessary to impose a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. 10. Subject to these conditions, planning permission can therefore be given, and I allow the appeal. G Garnham INSPECTOR