Extension to existing raised terrace and a storage shed

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 February 2018 by Megan Thomas Barrister-at-Law an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Decision date: Monday 12th March 2018. Appeal Ref: APP/K3605/D/17/3190208 27 Charlwood Drive, Oxshott, Leatherhead KT22 0HB  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 Ron Bradley against the decision of Elmbridge Borough Council.  The application Ref 2017/1886, dated 12 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 October 2017.  The development proposed is “extension to existing raised terrace and a storage shed”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for extension to existing terrace and a storage shed at 27 Charlwood Drive, Oxshott, Leatherhead KT22 0HB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2017/1886, dated 12 June 2017 subject to the following conditions: 1) The storage shed hereby permitted shall be carried out and completed within 4 months of the date of this decision. 2) The storage shed hereby permitted shall be retained permanently and in the same location, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following approved plans, including using the specified materials: 1438.CRW.211, 1438.CRW.210, 1438.CRW.202, 1438.CRW.201, 1438.CRW.212, 1438.CRW.200. Procedural Matter 2. The planning application form sought permission for an extension to an existing raised terrace and for the erection of a storage shed. The extension to the raised terrace has already taken place and therefore I have treated that part of the appeal proposal as retrospective. Main Issue 3. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupants of no.29 Charlwood Drive with particular regard to privacy and outlook. Appeal Decision APP/K3605/D/17/3190208 2 Reasons 4. The appeal site is a two storey detached dwelling on the south side of Charlwood Drive. To its west side is no.29, which is also a detached dwelling. Both houses have good-sized rear gardens. 5. Recently works have taken place at the appeal site. These included the erection of a rear terrace. The terrace is about 0.6m above the main garden at the appeal site and it extends across the full width of the plot in a line (broadly speaking) with the rear elevation of the dwelling. A section of the raised terrace adjoining the common boundary with no.29 does not have the benefit of planning permission. The proposal before me seeks retrospective permission to regularise a portion of the terrace at the height and in the position that it already exists. The proposal also seeks permission to erect an outbuilding on the raised terrace on the common boundary with no.29. The two elements are put forward as a package with a suggestion that the outbuilding could be conditioned to be permanently retained. 6. Whilst there is some boundary treatment along the common boundary with no.29, the raised terrace for which retrospective permission is sought allows clear and easy views into the rear garden and towards the rear elevation of no.29. However, the outbuilding which is proposed would be situated on the common boundary and on the raised terrace and would be about 4.5m in length and about 1.9m high. It would in my view provide a sufficient screen to prevent or discourage overlooking of the rear elevation and garden of no.29. I take the view that private areas of no.29 would be “well-screened” by the storage shed in terms of paragraph 1.18 of the Elmbridge Design and Character Supplementary Planning Document Companion Guide Home Extensions. 7. Of particular importance, however, is the impact of the proposed outbuilding on the outlook for the occupants of no.29 from their home and garden. As well as being about 1.9m high the outbuilding would sit on the 0.6m high terrace. The outbuilding would not have an impact on outlook from inside no.29 owing to the separation distance between those areas. When using the garden, the outbuilding with its flat roof, would not be of a size or presence to result in a feeling of enclosure for the occupants and would not be oppressive given the width and depth of the garden. Furthermore, on the evidence provided by the appellant I am satisfied that if planning permission were not granted as a result of this appeal, there is a realistic prospect that the appellant would deploy permitted development rights under Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. This would allow a shed with a flat roof not exceeding 2.5m in height to be built on the common boundary at ground/garden level (not raised terrace level). This would mean the outlook for the occupants of no.29 would have an outlook the same, similar or worse than this planning permission. I have taken this consideration into account. 8. I am mindful of national planning guidance to use planning conditions where they might overcome the harm from objections. In this case, I consider that a condition which required the outbuilding to be retained permanently and in the same location unless the local planning authority approved otherwise, would overcome the loss of privacy that results from the raised terrace (at a height of about 0.6m) stretching up to the common boundary. I also consider that the Appeal Decision APP/K3605/D/17/3190208 3 outbuilding should to be conditioned to be carried out and completed soon after planning permission for it is granted so as to ameliorate any current overlooking. This is why I have imposed condition 1 and specified a four month period. I also have imposed a condition tying the permission to the approved plans and included a reference to using the materials specified on the plans as this would provide certainty and protect the character and appearance of the area. 9. I conclude, therefore, that the development sought would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupants of no.29 Charlwood Drive by reason of loss of outlook or privacy. There would be no breach of policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan (adopted April 2015) or policy CS17 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted 2011). 10. I have considered whether the raised terrace for which retrospective permission is sought harms the character or appearance of the host dwelling or surrounding area but I am satisfied that it does not. 11. Having taken into account all relevant representations, for the reasons given above, I allow the appeal. Megan Thomas INSPECTOR