Two storey front gable, two storey rear extension, infill above rear single storey area, alterations to roof and elevations to existing rear single storey area and attached garage with playroom over and single storey link

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 January 2018 by Tom Gilbert-Wooldridge BA (Hons) MTP MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N0410/D/17/3189209 Beechwood House, 21 Beechwood Road, Beaconsfield HP9 1HP  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 Mrs Tracey Ricci against the decision of South Bucks District Council.  The application Ref 17/01440/FUL, dated 21 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 October 2017.  The development proposed is described on the application form as “two storey front gable, two storey rear extension, infill above rear single storey area, alterations to roof and elevations to existing rear single storey area and attached garage with playroom over and single storey link”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for front projecting double garage with accommodation over, construction of front gable, two storey side/rear extension, first floor rear infill extension incorporating Juliette balconies and re-roofing of existing single storey rear section incorporating roof lantern, and extension to existing patio at Beechwood House, 21 Beechwood Road, Beaconsfield HP9 1HP, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/01440/FUL, dated 21 June 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1087.01 Rev A, 1087.02 Rev A, 1087.03 Rev A, 1087.04 Rev A and 1087.05 Rev A. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) The window at first floor level in the south-west elevation of the extension hereby permitted (serving ‘Bedroom 5’ as shown on the approved plans) shall be of a permanently fixed, non-opening design, unless the parts of the window that can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed, and shall be fitted and permanently maintained with obscure glazing. Procedural Matter 2. The description of development in the original planning application form omitted reference to Juliette balconies, a roof lantern on the re-roofed single storey rear extension and an extension to the existing patio. Therefore, for greater clarity, the description used in the formal decision above is taken from Appeal Decision APP/N0410/D/17/3189209 2 the Council’s decision notice. This is also the description used in the appeal form. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of 19 Beechwood Road with regard to outlook and light. Reasons 4. Beechwood Road comprises detached properties of varying sizes and designs set back from the road by front gardens and boundary planting on wide and spacious plots. The appeal property at 21 Beechwood Road is a large detached property. The building line either side is staggered, so that 19 Beechwood Road is positioned nearer to the road while 23 Beechwood Road is further back than the appeal property. Gaps between the appeal property, its side boundaries and the neighbouring properties are relatively close, with around a metre between the appeal property and its boundary with No 19. 5. The Council’s reason for refusal focuses solely on the effect of the proposed forward projecting garage on the living conditions of occupiers of 19 Beechwood Road in terms of light and outlook. I visited No 19 as requested by its occupier in order to establish the effect of the proposed garage on internal and external spaces. 6. No 19 has a living room on the ground floor nearest to the side boundary with the appeal property. A large window on the front elevation, a smaller window on the side elevation and glazing at the rear as part of a conservatory addition provide the living room with light and outlook. The large front window looks across the front garden to the road, with an oblique view to the boundary and front garden of the appeal property. The smaller side window looks directly towards the side boundary and front garden of the appeal property. Due to the proximity of planting, this window appeared quite shaded and enclosed at my site visit with a limited view. The rear glazing provides good levels of light from and outlook to the rear garden of No 19. 7. The width and depth of the front garden and driveway at No 19 provides good levels of light and outlook and forms part of the green and leafy nature of the road. The passageway along the side of No 19 is enclosed by the flank wall of the property and the boundary vegetation and so has lower levels of light and outlook. 8. The proposed garage would project past the ground floor side window and front elevation of No 19. It would add a significant amount of built form near to the side boundary with a large roof to accommodate a playroom at first floor. It would have a particular effect on the side of No 19 in terms of the side living room window and passageway. It would breach 45 and 60 degree angles from the side window as set out in the house extensions design guide. It would reduce the amount of light to the side in terms of daylight but also sunlight in the afternoon and evenings depending on the time of year. There would be a greater sense of enclosure too. 9. However, the garage would be set back from side boundary by around a metre with the potential to enhance boundary planting. The roof would angle away from the boundary and the side of No 19 to reduce the overall bulk. Importantly, the side living room window is small and not the primary source of Appeal Decision APP/N0410/D/17/3189209 3 light and outlook for this room. The front living room window would be much less affected by the garage with only an oblique view across the boundary and limited light loss due to the orientation and distance. As such, the living room would continue to benefit from good outlook and light at the front and rear and would not be reduced to single aspect only. There would be some harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 19 in terms of reduced light to and outlook from the side window, but it would not be significant or unacceptable for the reasons stated above. 10. The side passageway would receive less light and a greater sense of enclosure. However, this external space largely acts as the link between the front and rear gardens rather than a principal part of the outdoor space for No 19. Thus, the harm to living conditions would be limited. The front garden would experience enclosure along the side boundary and some effect on light. However, the overall width and depth of this space and its function primarily as the entrance and driveway into No 19 compared with the more private space of the rear garden means that the harm to living conditions would also be limited. 11. I note that planning permission was refused for a garage in front of 15 Beechwood Road in 2013 due to negative effects on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, I do not have sufficient details of that proposal to know if it is directly comparable to the proposed development. In any case, I have assessed this appeal on its own merits based on the site specific circumstances. 12. Concluding on the main issue, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of 19 Beechwood Road in terms of light and outlook. Therefore, it would accord with Policies H9, H11, H13, EP3, EP5 and Appendix 8 of the South Bucks District Local Plan 1999 (‘the Local Plan’). Amongst other things, Policies H9, H11 and H13 and Appendix 8 seek to ensure that development does not adversely affect the amenities of adjacent properties through overdominance, obtrusiveness or loss of daylight, with particular attention paid to the impact on the primary windows of habitable rooms. Policy EP3 requires the scale and siting of development to not adversely affect the amenities of any nearby properties. Policy EP5 seeks to only permit development where its design and layout would provide for adequate daylight and where possible sunlight to reach into spaces around and between buildings and would not result in a significant loss of daylight or sunlight to adjacent buildings or land. 13. Core Policy 8 of the South Bucks Core Strategy 2011 (‘the Core Strategy’) is referenced by the Council in its reason for refusal. This policy relates to the built and historic environment rather than living conditions, so is not relevant to the main issue. However, I will consider it under other matters below. Other Matters 14. The proposed conversion of the existing integral garage to a media room has raised concerns about potential noise and disturbance issues for the occupiers of 19 Beechwood Road. While the details regarding this room are limited, it would appear to relate to part of the overall residential use of the property and so unlikely to inevitably create unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance. Thus, it would not be necessary to require soundproofing of the room, while any noise nuisance could be addressed through environmental health procedures. The proposed roof lantern on top of the existing single storey rear Appeal Decision APP/N0410/D/17/3189209 4 extension would be largely flush with the roof and so unlikely to result in significant light pollution to neighbouring properties. 15. The side window for Bedroom 5 within the two storey rear extension nearest to 23 Beechwood Road has the potential to result in overlooking issues for occupiers of No 23. As the Council’s committee report indicates, this could be addressed via a condition requiring this window to be obscure glazed and non- opening below 1.7 metres. Given that the room would also have an unobscured and opening window on the rear elevation, such a condition would be reasonable as well as necessary to safeguard privacy. The two Juliette balconies on the rear elevation would be immediately in front of their respective windows and would prevent access onto the limited flat roof of the single storey rear extension. As such, this would limit overlooking into the neighbouring properties and gardens at Nos 19 and 23. There would be sufficient gap between the two storey rear extension and the boundary and property at No 23 to limit adverse effects on occupiers of No 23 in terms of outlook and light. 16. Beechwood Road is identified as Residential Area of Exceptional Character (RAEC) by Policy H10 of the Local Plan. The South Bucks Townscape Character Study 2015 (TCS) identifies this part of Beaconsfield as having large houses on large plots set amongst mature trees and lush planting with a variety of architectural character. There is consistency in terms of regular plot pattern and landscape character with houses set back from the road. 17. I concur that Beechwood Road has an attractive character and appearance based on these qualities. Properties are large and varied in architectural character, and include several with linked or detached garages at the front. While each example differs in terms of its relationship with the neighbouring property, these garages form part of the overall street scene. Although these garages were apparently built before the publication of the TCS, there is little in that document that advises against such development in this part of the district. 18. The proposed garage would be large but compared to the scale of the main appeal property and other properties along the road would not be overly dominant or visually intrusive. Although forward of the existing building line, it would be a subservient feature to the main property and not unusual given existing examples. It would utilise materials to match the existing property and provide sufficient space to the side to allow for the retention and enhancement of existing boundary planting. I note the potential for damage to roots of existing hedging plants and the removal of existing trees, but this is not guaranteed while vegetation could be replaced to maintain the leafy character of the road. I also note concerns regarding the shadowing effect of the garage on plant growth along the boundary, but do not consider that light levels would be reduced to the extent that planting would not be able to grow at all. 19. Notwithstanding the fact that the appeal property has already undergone a number of extensions, the other elements of the proposed development would be in proportion with and sympathetic to the scale and design of the appeal property and the overall road. Sufficient gaps between boundaries and properties would remain and the overall scale, spaciousness and leafy layout of development along the road would be preserved. The lack of smaller units to Appeal Decision APP/N0410/D/17/3189209 5 meet the needs of the elderly and other groups in Beaconsfield is not something that this development should be reasonably expected to address. 20. I note concerns about setting a precedent for similar development elsewhere, but each case would need to be assessed on its own merits based on site specific circumstances. The appeal property is surrounded by residential streets and so concerns about the effect of development on the nearby Green Belt are not pertinent. I also note concerns about the changing character of Beaconsfield, but there is nothing in the evidence before me to indicate that this development would materially harm the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, it would accord with Policy CP8 of the Core Strategy and Policies H9, H10, H11 and H13 and Appendix 8 of the Local Plan. Amongst other things, these policies and Appendix 8 seek to avoid adverse effects on the character of the area, including RAECs where a high standard of design is required compatible to the character, size and siting of existing development, and expect development to be very subordinate in scale to the existing dwelling and harmonise with it in terms of height, form and design. 21. The existing road surface appeared to be in a reasonable condition at my site visit, and was quiet in terms of parked vehicles and traffic movements with parking controls in place and large driveways for cars. While construction would cause some temporary disruption, it does not appear that there would be significant issues in terms of parking and movement or the resulting condition of the road. In planning terms, it would not be necessary or reasonable to request that the appellant pays to restore the road, or to limit the size of construction vehicles. Conditions 22. Conditions setting a time limit for the commencement of development and for it to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans are necessary for clarity and compliance. A condition requiring materials to match those used in the existing building is necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. A condition controlling the opening and glazing of the window in the south-west elevation of the two storey extension is necessary and reasonable to safeguard the living conditions of occupiers of 23 Beechwood Road with regard to privacy. Given that first floor rooms would be served by reasonably sized windows, it is not necessary to restrict the insertion of additional windows in the flank elevation of the property in the interests of safeguarding the privacy of neighbours. Conclusion 23. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Tom Gilbert-Wooldridge INSPECTOR