Retention of single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 January 2018 by R C Shrimplin MA(Cantab) DipArch RIBA FRTPI FCIArb MCIL an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 March 2018 Appeal Reference: APP/W5780/D/17/3187145 24 Charlbury Gardens, Seven Kings, Ilford IG3 9TU  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 T Javaid against the decision of the London Borough of Redbridge Council.  The application (reference 1718/17, dated 23 May 2017) was refused by notice dated 26 July 2017.  The development proposed is described in the application form as “retention of single storey rear extension”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension at 24 Charlbury Gardens, Seven Kings, Ilford IG3 9TU, in accordance with the terms of the application (reference 1718/17, dated 23 May 2017), subject to the following condition. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: drawing number ZAAVIA/24CG/101A: Pre Existing & As Built Plans; drawing number ZAAVIA/24CG/102A: Pre Existing Elevations; drawing number ZAAVIA/24CG/103A: As Built Elevations; drawing number ZAAVIA/24CG/104A: Pre Existing Site Plan; drawing number ZAAVIA/24CG/105A: As Built Site Plan; unnumbered Site Location Plan. Main issues 2. There are two main issues to be determined in this appeal. The first main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character of the host building and its surroundings. The second is the effect of the extension on the residential amenities of neighbours (whether unacceptable harm would be caused by overbearing impact and loss of outlook). Reasons 3. The appeal site is located in a closely built up residential suburb. In the vicinity of the appeal site, the streetscene is characterised by terraced housing in a traditional form, set behind small gardens. Number 24 Charlbury Gardens is Appeal Decision: APP/W5780/D/17/3187145 2 located at the end of a short terrace, with an outbuilding at the rear of the small garden. 4. At the rear of the house itself a rear extension has been built, for which planning permission is now sought, retrospectively. It incorporates a kitchen and an extension to the dining room, replacing a bay window and a previous kitchen extension. According to the submissions, the rear extension, as built, has overall dimensions of 6 metres in depth and 3.6 metres in height. By contrast, “prior approval” had been granted for a rear extension with overall dimensions of 6 metres in depth and 3.0 metres in height. 5. Among other things, the ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ emphasises the aim of “requiring good design” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 7) and it points out the importance of creating an attractive streetscape and maintaining the overall quality of the area. It is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, which includes protecting existing residential amenities and providing good standards of accommodation. Indeed, paragraph 17 of the NPPF identifies as a “core planning principle” the need to “always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings”. 6. An emphasis on the importance of good design and the need to protect residential amenities is also to be found in the Council’s Development Plan, notably at Policies BD1 and BD5 of the ‘Borough Wide Primary Policies’ and Strategic Policy 3 of the ‘Core Strategy’. 7. The extension that has been built is not particularly attractive, in architectural terms, but it does not greatly differ from that which can fall within “permitted development rights” that, in effect, set a standard for certain types of minor development. Although the scheme as built requires planning permission, the existence of such permitted development rights is, in general terms, a material planning consideration in this appeal. 8. The extension does not have a material effect on the streetscene nor is it significantly out of keeping with the general character of the surroundings. It is not, therefore, so unattractive that it has a harmful effect on the host building or on the surroundings generally. 9. Even so, it would have an impact on neighbours’ living conditions. The building is higher than had been approved and, taking account of the depth of the extension, it presents relatively large blank walls to the side boundaries of the plot. These do have an effect on the outlook from the gardens of the neighbouring properties. 10. The extension is built close up to its boundary with number 22 Charlbury Gardens (to the north) but I was able to see from the appeal site that this neighbouring house has various additions at the rear, in any case. Although the extension has some effect on the neighbours’ outlook at number 22, I have concluded, on balance, that its impact is not unacceptable in its context, a closely built up locality. 11. The extension is set back from its boundary with number 26 Charlbury Gardens (to the south), by the width of the alleyway that provides access to the rear of the property (approximately 0.8 metre). Again, the flank wall has some effect Appeal Decision: APP/W5780/D/17/3187145 3 on the outlook from the neighbouring property but, from my view of the appeal site, I have again concluded, on balance, that its impact is not unacceptable in its context. 12. In short, I find that the effect of the extension that has been built on the neighbours is not, in its context, significantly greater than that of an extension falling within permitted development rules. Moreover, I have concluded that the extension is not so large and ungainly that it ought to be refused planning permission, in the circumstances of this particular case. In reaching that conclusion, I have taken account of the apparent lack of objection by neighbours (though that cannot be decisive, of course). 13. Evidently, the appeal site lies within an established urban area, which is “sustainable” in planning terms, and the proposed extension is a useful addition to the accommodation at number 24 Charlbury Gardens. I have concluded that the extension does not have an unacceptable effect on neighbours’ amenities or on the quality of the surroundings and that it would not be in conflict with the Development Plan, in principle. 14. Planning permission can properly be granted, therefore, and, although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision. 15. I have, however, also considered the need for conditions and I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the local planning authority in the usual way (without prejudice to their stance on the appeal). In this case, the extension has already been completed and in spite of the Council’s suggestions, I am convinced that only a single condition is needed, in order to define the planning permission and for the avoidance of doubt. Roger C Shrimplin INSPECTOR