First floor rear extension alterations to ground floor extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 March 2018 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L5240/D/17/3189643 46 Princess Road, Croydon, Surrey, CR0 2QZ.  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 Lucas Hance against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Croydon.  The application Ref 17/03068/HSE, dated 19 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 29 September 2017.  The development proposed is described as first floor rear extension alterations to ground floor extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for first floor rear extension alterations to ground floor extension at 46 Princess Road, Croydon, Surrey, CR0 2QZ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/03068/HSE, dated 19 June 2017, and the plans submitted with it, 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 materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until at least one water butt with a volume of 100 litres shall have been installed and connected to a rainwater downpipe from the roof of the development hereby permitted, once installed the rainwater butt shall be retained and maintained thereafter. 4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawing: P/FFE dated 06/17 in so far as it relates to the first floor rear extension and alterations to ground floor extension hereby approved. Procedural Matters 2. In addition to the proposed enlargement of the existing ground floor addition and the construction of a first floor extension, the original application drawing also showed the extension and conversion of the roof to provide additional accommodation. However, as the work at roof level does not form part of the description of development set out on the application form and as it has not Appeal Decision APP/L5240/D/17/3189643 2 been referred to by the parties my determination will be based solely on the proposed development at ground and first floor level. Main Issue 3. I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed first floor extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of number 45 Princess Road in terms of a potential to result in a loss of outlook and an increased sense of enclosure. Reasons 4. The appeal property, 46 Princess Road, is a two-storey mid terrace dwelling house. As I saw both the neighbouring properties (numbers 45 and 47) have two-storey rear extensions. 5. The appellant proposes alterations to a ground floor addition to make it wider, along with the construction of a new flat roofed first floor addition built over the existing kitchen extension. 6. The first floor addition, which I understand from the evidence before me would be about 4.67 metres wide, would be built up to the flank of a similar first floor addition at number 47 and therefore would have no effect on the living conditions of those occupiers. 7. The enlargement of the existing kitchen projection would result in the gap between numbers 46 and 45 being reduced. Due to the proposed width of the first floor extension, the gap between the flank walls of the neighbouring first floor outshoots would be much wider than at ground floor level. 8. Number 45 has a window at first floor level serving a habitable room set in the rear wall of the original dwelling. From this vantage point the outlook would be into the gap between the dwellings. 9. I agree with the Council that the proposed extensions would result in some loss of outlook and an increased sense of enclosure. However, given this high- density urban location and the width of the gap between the flank walls of the two first floor additions, on balance, I do not agree that the loss of outlook and the increased sense of enclosure would be so significant as to cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of number 45 Princess Road. 10. I therefore conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed extensions would not, in terms of loss of outlook or an enhanced sense of enclosure, cause detrimental harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of number 45 Princess Road. The development would therefore accord with Policy UD8 of the Croydon Replacement Unitary Development Plan (The Croydon Plan) 2006, saved Policies 2013, Policy 7.6 of the London Plan (consolidated with alterations since 2011) (Adopted March 2015) and Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document No 2 (Adopted 6 December 2006) as they relate to the protection of the living conditions of residential occupiers. Conditions 11. The conditions follow from those suggested by the Council. To safeguard the requirement for a high quality development, I shall include a condition about the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the Appeal Decision APP/L5240/D/17/3189643 3 building. To ensure the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated I shall also require the installation of a water butt. 12. In the interests of certainty, I shall impose a condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans. Conclusions 13. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Philip Willmer INSPECTOR