Two storey side extension to create living accommodation ancillary to main dwelling

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 March 2018 by David Fitzsimon MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/17/3189411 167 Percy Road, Twickenham TW2 6JE  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 Tilak Raj against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames.  The application Ref 17/2001/HOT, dated 19 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 30 August 2017.  The development proposed is a ‘two storey side extension to create living accommodation ancillary to main dwelling’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. Reasons 3. The appeal relates to a detached property which sits on the corner of Percy Road and Pauline Crescent. The immediate area is predominantly residential in character, although the property on the opposite side of the junction, No. 169 Percy Road, accommodates a dental surgery. This property has been the subject of a two storey side extension which extends fully to the back edge of the pavement along Pauline Crescent. As a result, I consider that the undeveloped side garden of the appeal property, with mature landscaping along the boundary, makes an important contribution to the feeling of space at the junction, which has previously been affected by the aforementioned development. 4. The main two storey section of the proposed extension would be set back from the front elevation of the host dwelling, its roof would sit below the main ridge and its external finish would be an appropriate match, as recommended by the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document titled ‘House Extensions and External Alterations’ (SPD) and as illustrated by one of the examples within it. Nevertheless, it would be a substantial addition. The width and overall scale Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/17/3189411 2 of the proposed extension would give the dwelling an imbalanced appearance when viewed in the context of the more modest two storey section on the opposite side of its main body. Further, the extension would fully occupy the space at the side of the dwelling and would abut the pavement. Although this would not lead to a terracing effect, the result would be an overly dominant addition which would harmfully reduce the feeling of spaciousness at the junction. 5. The appellant argues that the proposal amounts to sustainable development. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) explains that ‘good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people’ (paragraph 56). It also explains that development should, amongst other considerations, ‘add to the overall quality of the area’ and ‘respond to local character’ (paragraph 58). As I have found that the design of the proposed extension would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the local area, it follows that it cannot amount to sustainable development in the wider sense of the definition provided by the Framework. 6. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed extension would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. In such terms, it conflicts with policy CP7 of the adopted London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Local Development Framework Core Strategy, policy DM DC1 of the adopted Development Management Plan, policy LP1 of the emerging Local Plan and the overall aims of the SPD. Other Matters 7. I appreciate that the proposal would utilise an underused section of garden and I am mindful that the proposal has not generated any formal objections locally. Given the physical relationships and separation distances involved, I am also satisfied that the proposed extension would not unduly impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby properties in any way. Nevertheless, these positive factors neither alter nor outweigh the significant harm I have identified. 8. As I have mentioned, I am aware of the extension at No. 169 Percy Road. Whilst I do not know the precise planning circumstances behind this development, the appellant accepts that it was ‘judged against different policy criteria’. I have also considered the example referred to at 24 Jubilee Avenue. However, this is of a different design and sits within a different street scene. I have considered the appeal proposal on its individual merits and against the specific context within which it would sit. Overall Conclusion 9. The proposed extension would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. The arguments advanced in favour of the proposal do not outweigh this harm. Accordingly, the appeal does not succeed. David Fitzsimon INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/17/3189411 3