Erection of a single storey side and rear extension scheme and internal remodel

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 March 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13th March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/C5690/D/17/3189662 44 Glenwood Road, London SE6 4NF  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 Ms Fiona Mannion against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Lewisham.  The application Ref DC/17/103088 was refused by notice dated 14 November 2017.  The development proposed is the erection of a single storey side and rear extension scheme and internal remodel. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. At the site visit, I saw that trenches had been dug that were in a position that would broadly correlate with the foundations of the proposal. Main issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the local area and on the living conditions of the occupiers of 46 Glenwood Road with regard to visual impact and sense of enclosure. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The proposal is to erect a single storey extension at the back of the appeal property, which is a 2-storey mid-terrace dwelling within a mainly residential area. The new addition would extend outwards from the existing rear outrigger to the existing rear build line of the attached property, which is 42 Glenwood Road. The proposal would also infill the narrow recess at the back of the main house with a new flank wall along the common boundary with 46 Glenwood Road on the opposite side of the site. 5. As the new addition would be ‘L’ shaped and extend across the entire width of the host building and plot, its built form would contrast with other existing projections at the back of properties on each side of the site. From what I saw, these existing rear projections mostly extend from the outrigger and are therefore narrower and smaller with a different relationship to the host building than the proposal before me. Appeal Decision APP/C5690/D/17/3189662 2 6. The proposed extension would elongate the built form of No 44, significantly enlarge its footprint, and noticeably add to its scale and mass. In views from the rear garden of No 44, the proposed extension would appear overly wide and large in relation to the existing dwelling. Its considerable scale and bulk would cause the new addition to visually overwhelm the basic form, modest proportions and traditional style of the host building. 7. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document, Residential Standards (SPD) states that over-dominant extensions may destroy the architectural integrity of existing buildings and may be out of character with adjacent buildings. For the reasons given, that would be the case with the proposal before me. 8. In addition, the new mono pitched roof would terminate above the cill level of a first floor rear-facing window. By cutting into the proposed roof slope, the proposal would appear ill proportioned to the existing dwelling. It would visually accentuate the awkward relationship between the new addition and the host building. Taken together, I consider that the proposal would fail to achieve the high quality design sought by Core Strategy 15 of the Council’s Core Strategy (CS). The main outcome would be significant harm to the character and appearance of the host building. 9. The rear addition would not be readily visible from public vantage points given its position at the back of the main house. It would nonetheless form part of the characteristics of the area as it is experienced and appreciated from nearby houses and gardens. When seen from the rears of the properties on either side of the site, the proposed development would draw the eye as an uncharacteristically large and unsympathetic form of development. 10. Reference is made to the rear projection at No 42, which the appellant considers to be similar in scale, height and depth to the proposal. Whether or not that is the case, I am not aware of the particular circumstances of this scheme and so I cannot be certain that its particular circumstances directly compare with those of the proposal. In any event, I assessed the development sought on its own merits and find it to be unacceptable for the reasons given. Living conditions 11. The flank wall of the proposed extension would be up to and along the shared rear boundary with No 46. With a shallow pitched roof sloping down to a relatively low eaves level, the proposal has been designed to minimise its effect on the occupiers of No 46. While the new flank wall would be modest in height, it would nevertheless project above the fence that marks the boundary between Nos 44 and 46 and its length would be considerable. 12. Having viewed the rear of No 46 from the site, I have little doubt that the new flank wall would unacceptably dominate outlook and overbear on the occupiers of this adjacent property due to its considerable length and close proximity to the common rear boundary between No 46 and the site. This would be most pronounced in views from the ground floor rear-facing window of No 46, which would be particularly close to the proposed extension. 13. The new built form would also have the effect of further enclosing the space within the narrow recess at the back of No 46. This arrangement would exacerbate the tunnel effect when viewed from the ground floor rear-facing window of the main house and the outdoor space just beyond it. In doing so, Appeal Decision APP/C5690/D/17/3189662 3 the proposal would unduly heighten a sense of enclosure when viewed from these particular vantage points, which would be unneighbourly. 14. In reaching this conclusion I note the appellant’s view that no objections were received from the occupiers of Nos 42 and 46. Even so, my assessment takes into account future as well as current occupiers of these properties. Conclusion on the main issues 15. On the main issues, I conclude that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the local area and to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 46. Accordingly, the appeal scheme conflicts with CS Policy 15, DM Policy 30 and DM Policy 31 of the Council’s Development Management Local Plan and the SPD. These policies and guidance aim to ensure that development achieves a high standard of design, is compatible with the building and the local area, and safeguards residential amenity. It would also fail to adhere with a core principle of the National Planning Policy Framework, which is to always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants. Other matters 16. The proposal would provide additional living accommodation at ground floor level, which would enhance the living conditions of the occupiers of No 44. It would also make efficient use of the available space at the rear of the property. Nevertheless, these considerations do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified in relation to the main issues. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal is not a sustainable form of development and that appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR