Single storey rear extension for family use

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 February 2018 by J Gilbert MA (Hons) MTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/F5540/D/17/3187262 22 Sutton Road, Hounslow TW5 0PF.  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph A4 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).  The appeal is made by Mrs Shelly Khan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow.  The application Ref 01096/22/PA2, dated 21 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 28 July 2017.  The development proposed is described as “Single storey rear extension for family use.” Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph A4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) for single storey rear extension for family use at 22 Sutton Road, Hounslow TW5 0PF in accordance with the details submitted pursuant to Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph A4 (2) of the GPDO. Procedural Matter 2. The application form is undated. I have therefore dated the application from the date received by the Council as indicated on the decision notice. 3. The provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), under Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Part A(12) require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development solely on the basis of its impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. My determination of this appeal has been made in the same manner. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect that the proposal would have on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 20 and 24 Sutton Road, with particular regard to light, outlook, noise, and privacy. Reasons 5. The appeal relates to a two-storey semi-detached house in a row of similar properties. 22 Sutton Road has an existing conservatory of approximately 2.3 metres in depth across the full width of the rear elevation of the existing semi- Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/17/3187262 2 detached house. The existing conservatory has low brick walls, windows to 3 sides, and a non-glazed roof. 6. The proposed development would replace the existing conservatory with a single-storey rear extension with an overall depth of 5 metres from the rear wall of the original house. The maximum height of the proposed extension would be 3.9 metres, with an eaves height of 3 metres. A lantern rooflight is proposed within the roof of the proposed extension and a window in the proposed side elevation would serve the kitchen. 7. The proposed development would be positioned approximately one metre from the boundary fence of roughly 2 metres in height separating the appeal site from 20 Sutton Road. Beyond the boundary fence, there is an approximately one metre gap to the house at No 20. No 20 has a single-storey rear extension of approximately 3.5 metres in depth with a window and a pair of glazed doors to the rear elevation. 8. The neighbouring occupiers at No 20 have raised concerns about the effect of the proposed development on light, noise, outlook, and privacy, and on character and appearance. I cannot consider the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area as part of this appeal. With regard to noise affecting the neighbouring house and garden at No 20, the proposed development would not fundamentally alter the use of the appeal site as a family home. In the absence of any supporting evidence of likely additional noise, apart from as a normal part of the construction process (which would be for a limited period of time only), the proposed development would not be unacceptably harmful in terms of noise for the occupiers of No 20. 9. There is a gap between the houses at Nos 20 and 22, and the nearest window within the rear elevation of the existing extension at No 20 is positioned over a metre from the side boundary. Although the upper part of the proposed development would clearly be visible above the existing boundary fence from the rear windows and back garden of No 20, it would not be unduly overbearing or detrimentally affect outlook. Given the gap between the properties and the depth of the existing extension at No 20, the proposed development would not be likely to lead to a significant change in the light to No 20 other than during a limited part of the afternoons during Winter months. The boundary fence and wall would provide an effective screen meaning that there would be unlikely to be any loss of privacy due to overlooking from the proposed side window. 10. The proposed development would directly adjoin the boundary of the attached house at No 24. However, the presence of the existing extension at No 24 and boundary hedging screening all but the upper part of the proposed development indicates that the proposed development would not cause an unacceptable loss of outlook or privacy, be overbearing, or give rise to a detrimental sense of enclosure for the occupiers of No 24. Given the orientation of both houses at Nos 22 and 24 with a southerly aspect, I consider that there would be likely to be only a very limited effect on light to the existing extension at No 24 in the mornings during Winter months. This likely effect on light would not be harmful in this instance. Apart from the construction phase of development discussed above, I also consider that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on noise for the occupiers of No 24. Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/17/3187262 3 11. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of 20 and 24 Sutton Road, with particular regard to light, outlook, noise, or privacy. The proposal would therefore accord with policies CC2 and SC7 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015 – 2030 (Volume One). 12. Policy CC2, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development has a positive impact on the amenity of current and future residents. Policy SC7 also requires that residential extensions and alterations minimise harm to neighbouring residents in terms of light, outlook and sense of enclosure. Policy SC7 also refers to the Council’s Residential Extensions Guidelines (REG). I have been provided with versions of this supplementary planning document dated 2003 and 2017. I recognise the conflict with the depth of extensions in the REG. However, since the changes to permitted development rights were put in place with the specific intention of allowing larger extensions, the appeal scheme should not be rejected for that reason alone. The Council has also referred to policy CC1 which relates to the character and appearance of an area. This policy is not directly relevant given the limited range of issues I must address in this decision. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and approval granted. The appellant should note that GPDO paragraph A.3 (a) requires the materials to be used in any exterior work to be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse, and paragraphs A.4 (13), (14) and (15) require the development to be completed on or before 30 May 2019 and that the developer shall notify the local planning authority in writing of the completion of the development as soon as reasonably practicable after completion. Such notification shall include the name of the developer, the address or location of the development, and the date of completion. J Gilbert INSPECTOR