Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 February 2018 by Ann Skippers BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 05 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/H5960/D/17/3186933 10 Collamore Avenue, London SW18 3JT  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. Sam Graham against the decision of the London Borough of Wandsworth Council.  The application Ref 2017/2951, dated 24 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 27 July 2017.  The development proposed is “Single storey rear extension”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. There are two main issues in this case. The first is the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 12. The second is the effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons Living Conditions 3. No 10 is a mid terraced property. The proposal is for a single storey rear extension which would replace a smaller existing rear element that extends partway across the rear elevation of the property. The proposed extension would extend across all of the width of the rear of the property, project for about 4.3m (from the main rear extension) and have a flat roof with a height of some 2.8m. 4. No 12 has a shallow rear element similar to the existing rear element on the appeal property. As a result the projection of the proposal along this boundary would be some 3m beyond that rear element. No 12 has a number of windows and glazed doors to the rear elevation. 5. I accept that in relation to light, any effect would not be so material as to warrant refusal of the proposal on this ground. I have considered outlook on the basis of any harm which would be caused by an overbearing development. At present despite the presence of boundary treatment, there is a sense of light and openness to the rear of these properties. 6. Although the individual dimensions of the extension are not particularly excessive, the combination of the proximity, the height and depth and the full width nature of it would result in an extension that would dominate the rear of No 12 given the expanse and height of the proposal. It would therefore be Appeal Decision APP/H5960/D/17/3186933 2 oppressive and overbearing for No 12 and its garden area. This effect would create an unacceptable sense of enclosure. 7. As a result the proposal would materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 12 and this by itself is sufficient reason to dismiss the appeal. 8. The effect on No 8 would be acceptable given that there is a single storey extension to the rear of this property and this proposal would project beyond this but by an acceptable amount. 9. The proposal would therefore conflict with Development Management Policies Document (2016) Policies DMS1 a., b. and c. which respectively seek a high level of physical integration with their surroundings, ensure that development contributes to local spatial character and does not harm the amenity of nearby properties and DMH5 (vii) which permits rear extensions if they are subservient to the original house and its setting and are not over-dominant ensuring a substantial depth of garden will remain free of structures. It would also conflict with the guidance in the Wandsworth Local Plan SPD Housing 2016. 10. These policies broadly reflect the general thrust of the National Planning Policy Framework which always seeks to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Character and Appearance 11. Turning now to the effect on character and appearance, the proposal would only be visible from a number of properties to the rear of the terrace which I accept is not locally listed or within a Conservation Area. The appellant has drawn my attention to various other extensions in the locality. Whilst I saw at my visit that a number of other properties have rear extensions, some of them quite large and high, the expanse and scale of this extension would mean, even with the retained albeit much smaller garden area, that it would not appear as a subservient addition and it would be over-dominant. This then adds to my concerns about the proposal. Other Matters 12. The appellant has drawn my attention to a previous approval for a 3m extension and points out that the property could be extended without the need for planning permission. I have not been given many details of either fallback position and there is no substantive evidence to indicate there is a significant probability that either position would be constructed should this appeal be dismissed. Indeed the appellant states that the appeal proposal would provide a more regular footprint to the back of the house. I therefore attach limited weight to either scenario as fallback positions and they do not help to justify an otherwise unacceptable scheme. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed. Ann Skippers INSPECTOR