Erection of a first-floor rear extension with Juliette balconies and alterations to the fenestration

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 December 2017 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 29 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/T0355/D/17/3187808 19 Brompton Drive, Maidenhead, SL6 6SP  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 Kobir Ahmed against the decision of The Council of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.  The application Ref 17/02290, dated 10 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 September 2017.  The development proposed is the erection of a first-floor rear extension with Juliette balconies and alterations to the fenestration. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: - (i) the living conditions at 18 Brompton Drive, with particular regard to visual impact and light; (ii) the character and appearance of the area; and (iii) parking. Reasons Living Conditions at 18 Brompton Drive 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached, two-storey dwelling set within a wider residential estate of broadly similar properties in terms of age and appearance. It is one of eight properties that are positioned perpendicular to the main limb of Brompton Drive and that front on to each side of a short pedestrian only access. The unattached neighbouring property at No 18 is similar in form but is stepped forward of the appeal property. Each has a pedestrian width access to each side that combine to give only a fairly narrow separation distance between both. 4. Due to the staggered relationship between these neighbouring properties, the existing two-storey flank wall to No 19 already projects well beyond the rear of No 18. The first-floor extension would project over 3m beyond the rear wall of the appeal property at this point. The combined effect, when taken with the position of the existing dwelling, would be a two-storey flank wall that would Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/17/3187808 2 project around 8m beyond the rear of No 18, and at very close quarters. This would impose itself upon the outlook from within No 18, and from the garden area immediately adjoining the rear of that property, as a dominant and enclosing structure that would have a significant overbearing and harmful visual impact upon the residential amenities enjoyed by the neighbouring occupiers. 5. Appendix 12 to The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan (Incorporating Alterations Adopted in June 2003) contains Guidance Note 1 "House Extensions". This advises that, to avoid excessive loss of light, two- storey and first-floor extensions should not extend beyond a line drawn at 45 degrees from the centre of the nearest habitable room window, including kitchens, of an adjoining property. The appeal plans show that this guideline would be respected for the attached property at No 20. Given the relationship with No 18 however, there would be a serious degree of infringement on the opposite side. I saw during the late morning time of my visit that No 19 already casts a significant amount of shadow over the rear of No 18. This impact would worsen as a result of the appeal proposal. As these properties only benefit from morning sunlight to the rear, due their orientation, I find that the added impact through loss of sunlight during morning hours, would contribute to a situation overall that would be harmful to the living conditions at No 18. Character and Appearance 6. The estate is laid out with a central, no-through route and with small cul-de- sacs branching from each side of it. Consequently, the backs of the houses in many cases are open to full view from the public domain and I saw that the area maintains a strong degree of consistency and uniformity due to the regular and simple architectural form of the dwellings. Furthermore, I saw no obvious examples where this had been affected by any first- floor extension to any property. 7. The rear of No 19 is clearly seen from a branch of Brompton Drive that serves Nos 3-11 arranged around a short length of road and turning head. The proposed first-floor extension would be staggered in its depth, in order to address its impact upon No 20, each part finished with a hipped roof and a central valley between them. This roof form would be uncharacteristic for the existing dwelling and wider area, where gabled elevations feature strongly and prevail. In addition, the asymmetrical arrangement for the extension would appear poorly conceived and disjointed, with its incongruous form compounded by the floor to ceiling glazing that would be entirely out of keeping with that on neighbouring properties and more widely. 8. Overall, I find that the proposal would have little visual harmony with the original property, which would be harmful to its character and appearance, and that of the wider area. Parking 9. The Council is concerned that the proposal would convert the property from a three bedroom to a four bedroom dwelling and that, by doing so, there would be a need for the property to be provided with three parking spaces to comply with their adopted parking standards in Appendix 7 of the Local Plan, as Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/17/3187808 3 amended by the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Parking Strategy, May 2004. However, I note that those standards are given as a maximum to be achieved. 10. Moreover, the standards pre-date the National Planning Policy Framework which states that local planning authorities should only impose local parking standards for residential and non-residential development where there is clear and compelling justification that it is necessary to manage their local road network. No such justification has been provided and I therefore attach limited weight to the Council’s parking standards. However, even if there would be parking spill onto the roads as a result of the proposal, there is no evidence of any local parking stress and I saw during my visit no regime for restricting parking on the surrounding roads. I am therefore unable to detect any potential for harm to environmental amenity or road safety. Other Matters 11. I have noted some concern expressed relating to the possible loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers. However, the outlook from the fenestration to the rear would continue to be directed towards the back of the appeal property. There would be no increased risk of overlooking that would significantly impact upon levels of privacy to any nearby properties. 12. I have noted and understand the appellant’s need to provide more space for his family, but this does not outweigh the harms that I have identified. Conclusions 13. Notwithstanding my findings as they relate to car parking, for the reasons given I find that the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions at 18 Brompton Drive, and to the character and appearance of the area. There would therefore be conflict with Local Plan Policy H14 insofar as it seeks to ensure that house extensions should not have any adverse effect upon the character or appearance of the original property or the street scene in general; and that they should not cause an unacceptable loss of light to adjacent properties, or significantly affect their amenities. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. John D Allan INSPECTOR