Single storey rear wraparound extension, alteration to the front garden and formation of a new vehicular crossover

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: Friday 9th March 2018. Appeal Ref: APP/K3605/D/17/3190503 22 Leigh Road, Cobham, Surrey KT11 2LD  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 Alex Smith against the decision of Elmbridge Borough Council.  The application Ref 2017/2753, dated 21 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 3 November 2017.  The development proposed is “Single storey rear wraparound extension, alteration to the front garden and formation of a new vehicular crossover”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the single storey rear wraparound extension on the living conditions of nearby neighbours with regard to outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal site is a two storey semi-detached dwelling situated on the south west side of Leigh Road. Its semi-pair is no.20. No.24 is also semi-detached and has a rear outrigger with a single storey side extension and a rear conservatory. The appeal site had two greenhouses in the rear garden and a timber lean-to shed attached to the rear elevation of the rear outrigger. At the time of my site visit these structures had been demolished and the debris cleared away. Some vegetation had also been removed. The land falls gently from north east to south west. 4. The part of the proposed development which is objected to by the Council and others is the rear extension. The extension would measure about 9.6m in depth and would be situated on the side of no.22 which faces the side elevation of no.24. It would have a height of about 3.2m from finished ground level. There would be a couple of steps down to the rear garden and from that rear garden the top of the extension would be about 4m in height. There would be two windows in the side elevation. Facing the rear garden there would be bifold doors with a small raised deck and a glass balustrade and on the south eastern end of that three steps down to the rear garden. 5. No.20 has rear patio doors leading out to a decked patio. The new side elevation of the proposal would be built on the common boundary between the Appeal Decision APP/K3605/D/17/3190503 2 two semi-detached dwellings. Whilst the depth of the proposal would not in itself be excessive, the height of it combined with the depth would present an overbearing and unduly enclosing wall to the occupants of no.20 when using the patio doors and the rear decking. There would also be a privacy screen of about 1.7m in height which would elongate the depth of structures along the common boundary and which would exacerbate the sense of enclosure. 6. Turning to the living conditions of occupants at no.24, the side extension built onto the outrigger has two side windows, and a door at the rear leading out to the garden/terrace. Given the depth of the proposed rear extension, the close proximity of 22 and 24, and the fact that the eaves of the proposed extension would be higher than the eaves of no.24’s side extension, I consider that the proposal would be too oppressive and would result in a corridor or tunnel effect. This would make the living conditions unacceptable for the occupants of no.24 when using that part of their garden/terrace close to their house and also, although to a lesser extent, when looking out of the two side windows in their side extension. 7. I have borne in mind that the rear part of the appeal site would be less cluttered with the removal of the two outbuildings and attached shed which were previously there, however, I conclude overall that the proposal would result in unacceptable living conditions for the occupants of both no.20 Leigh Road and no.24 Leigh Road by reason of loss of outlook. The proposed rear extension would be contrary to policies DM2 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan (adopted April 2015) and policy CS17 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy Development Plan Document (adopted 2011). 8. Having taken into all relevant representations made, for the reasons given above, I dismiss the appeal. Megan Thomas INSPECTOR