Proposed single-storey rear extension and internal alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 January 2018 by Graeme Robbie BA(Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B5480/D/17/3187282 51 Halidon Rise, Harold Park, Romford, Essex RM3 0YL  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, Class A, Paragraph A.4 of the Town and County Planning (General Permitted Development)(England) Order 2015.  The appeal is made by Mr Robert Fry against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering.  The application Ref Y0315.17, dated 3 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 10 October 2017.  The development proposed was described as a ‘proposed single-storey rear extension and internal alterations’. 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 a single storey rear extension at 51 Halidon Rise, Harold Park, Romford, Essex RM3 0YL in accordance with the details submitted pursuant to Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph A4 (2) of the GPDO in accordance with the conditions set out at paragraphs A.3. and A.4.(13), (14) and (15) of the GPDO, and subject to the following condition: 1) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, no window or other opening shall be formed in the flank walls of the extension hereby granted, unless specific permission under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has first been sought and obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority. Procedural Matter 2. The development was originally described in the terms set out in the banner heading above. I have, however, adopted an amended description in my decision above in the interests of precision. The appellant’s initial application form was also undated but both parties have subsequently adopted the date set out in the banner heading above. In the interests of consistency so too have I. Thus, with regard to both matters, I am satisfied that neither party would be prejudiced by my doing so, and I have determined the appeal accordingly. 3. The provisions of the GPDO require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development solely on the basis of its impact on the amenity of any adjoining properties, taking into account any representations received. Appeal Decision APP/B5480/D/17/3187282 2 4. Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph A of the GPDO allows for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of the original dwelling house. Until 30 May 2019, paragraph A.1.(g) of that Class states that, with regard to dwellings other than detached dwellings, development is not permitted by Class A if it would have a single storey and extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling house by more than 6 metres or would exceed 4 metres in height. 5. However, paragraph A.4.(1) applies conditions to development permitted by Class A in the above circumstances, the details of which are set out at paragraphs A.4.(2)(a) to (e). Key to these conditions is the requirement of paragraph A.4.(2) that the requirements of (a) to (e) must be provided before beginning the development. Paragraph A.4.(10) confirms the circumstances in which development may begin. 6. At the time of my visit to the site construction works were in progress in the form of ground works at the rear of the property. Under the provisions of the GPDO set out above, if works have commenced on the development it would no longer benefit from the approval granted by Class A. Clarification has however been provided by the appellant that, following refusal of the application which now lies before me, an application for planning permission1 for a revised rear extension was submitted to, and subsequently approved by, the Council. That application, I am advised, proposed an identical extension to the proposal now before me, other than the incorporation of a chamfered corner splayed at a 45° angle to address the Council’s concern with regard to the neighbouring property at No. 53. The appellant has also confirmed that the building works that were being undertaken at the time of my visit were in respect of the proposal for which planning permission has separately been granted and not those to which the current appeal relates. 7. The Council have not sought to challenge the appellant’s statement. Thus, from the evidence before me I am satisfied that the proposed development the subject of this appeal has not been commenced and does not therefore fall foul of the requirements of paragraph A.4.(2). However, it is nonetheless incumbent upon me to consider first whether the proposal would exceed the limitations set out at paragraph A.1.(g) of the GPDO, or any of the other limitations set out at paragraph A.1. Reasons 8. The appeal property is a mid-terraced two storey dwelling house. The rear wall of the dwelling is flush and there are no previous extensions at the rear of the property. The rear garden of the appeal property is broadly level, and at a similar level to the properties on either side of the appeal site. 9. The submitted plans (Dwg No: Sht 01 and Sht 03) confirm that the proposed extension would not extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling by more than 6 metres. The same plans also confirm that the maximum height of the extension would be 3.5 metres, eaves level would be 2.4 metres and the underside of the eaves would be 2.1 metres above ground level. Thus, I am satisfied that the proposal would not exceed the limitations set out at paragraph A.1.(g)(i) or (ii). Nor, from the evidence before me, would the proposal exceed the other limitations set out at paragraph A.1. 1 LPA Ref No: P1825.17 Appeal Decision APP/B5480/D/17/3187282 3 10. Although the rear gardens of the appeal property and its adjoining neighbours are of only modest depth, the longer more generous rear gardens of those opposite provide an open outlook from the rears of Nos. 49, 51 and 53. Unlike the neighbouring property at No. 49 which has a small build out at the rear that adjoins the appeal property, there is no similar build out at the rear of No. 53 to mitigate the proposal’s depth. The proposed extension would therefore present the full 3.6 metre depth of its flank elevation towards No. 53. 11. I accept that the proposed extension would be located to the south of No. 53 and would therefore be expected to have some degree of impact upon that property in terms of daylight and sunlight. However, it would be only 0.6 metres beyond a depth of extension that the Council’s ‘Residential Extensions and Alterations’ Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) would consider to be acceptable, and the reducing height to eaves level of the pitched roof would further reduce potential impact. Thus, in the context of the broadly open south westerly facing outlook from the rear of No. 53, I do not consider the proposal’s impact to be so significant as to result in a visually obtrusive, overbearing or enclosing form of development, or to result in an unacceptable impact on either daylight or sunlight to that property. 12. With regard to No. 49, the build out at the rear of that property negates some of the proposal’s 3.6 metre depth. However, more significantly, the proposed extension would be sited due north of No. 49 and so would be unlikely to result in loss of either daylight or sunlight. As with the relationship between the appeal property and No. 53, I do not consider that the overall depth or height of the proposal in this instance would result in an obtrusive or overbearing form of development in relation to No. 49, which also benefits from the same open south-westerly facing aspect as Nos. 51 and 53. The proposal would have no adverse impact on the amenities of occupants of this adjoining property. 13. I note the other concerns raised by the occupier of No. 49 with regards to the effect of the proposal on the structure of No. 49, ventilation and damp and property values but these are not matters that fall to be considered under the provisions of the GPDO. The materials to be used externally in the construction of the extension are covered by condition set out at paragraph A.3(a) of the GPDO. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval granted. In granting approval the appellant should note that the GPDO requires at Paragraphs A.4.(13), (14) and (15) that the development shall be completed on or before 30th 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. Additionally, the provisions of GPDO paragraph A.4.(12) allow the imposition of additional conditions and I agree therefore that a condition restricting the installation of windows or other openings on the flank walls of the extension is necessary in the interests of the amenity of occupiers of Nos. 49 and 53, as well as of the appellant. Graeme Robbie INSPECTOR