Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 March 2018 by Les Greenwood MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 6 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/17/3190675 23 Station Road, Teddington TW11 9AA  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 R Lobo against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond on Thames.  The application Ref 17/1924/HOT was refused by notice dated 11 September 2017.  The development proposed is a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 17/1924/HOT, dated 16 May 2017, and the plans numbered 951/PL01A and 951/PL03A, subject to the following condition: 1) The roof area of the extensions hereby permitted shall not be used as balconies, roof terraces or similar amenity areas. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no access shall be formed thereto. Clarifications 2. Although described on the application form as an extension, the proposal includes 2 separate rear extensions, both of which have already been built. The house has also been altered at roof level, with a hip to gable and box dormer window extensions. I understand that the Council may be taking enforcement action against some or all of those other works. This decision deals only with the single storey, ground floor extensions. 3. The proposed plans were corrected during the course of the application, and I have considered the appeal on the basis of those amended plans. Main issues 4. The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: i) the character and appearance of the house and the local area; and ii) living conditions at neighbouring properties. Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/17/3190675 2 Reasons Character and appearance 5. 23 Station Road is an end of terrace house sitting within a closely built up row of terraced and semi-detached houses in a mixed residential and commercial area. At the back its plot splays out, partly wrapping around the back of the neighbouring semi-detached house, No 25. The main proposed extension attaches to the back of the rear wing and projects to the side, slightly past the line of the side wall of No 25. The other, much smaller extension is on the other side, infilling part of the gap between the rear wing and the next terraced house, No 21. Both extensions have flat roofs. The larger one has grey rendered walls while the smaller uses bricks that match the main house. 6. The larger extension is barely visible from the street, through the narrow gap to No 25. Even in this view it is seen with other buildings in the background, so has no significant impact on the street scene. To the rear, in views from other properties, it appears as a good quality contemporary extension that complements the main house’s more traditional architecture in this discreet location. 7. The smaller extension is quite modest in scale and tucked away from most views. The extensions fit well in the context of the property’s oddly shaped garden. Ample garden area is retained and the extensions are not excessive in scale. I do not find them to be cramped or disproportionate in relation to the original house. 8. I conclude that the proposal does not harm the character or appearance of the house or the local area. It therefore accords with the aims of Core Strategy Policy CP7, Development Management Plan (DMP) Policy DM DC1, draft Local Plan (dLP) Policy LP1 and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) House Extensions and External Alterations, to ensure that development recognises distinctive local character and contributes to creating places of a high architectural and urban design quality. Living conditions 9. The main extension sits partly behind No 25 but is not behind any windows. I understand that it replaced a shed which stood in a similar position, but closer to No 25. Although I presume it to be taller than that shed, it is not overly tall. It has no windows facing No 25. Like the Council, I find that its impact on living conditions at No 25 is reasonably limited, in terms of light, outlook and privacy. 10. The smaller extension sits very close to ground floor windows at No 21. At 3m in height, it is significantly taller than the 2.2m eaves height which the SPD advises as a maximum on the boundary with other properties. It is, however, be seen largely in the context of the much taller rear wing. In this situation, its limited height and depth mean that it does not have an undue impact on light or outlook at No 21. It is furthermore in line with the 3m eaves height limit for extensions next to a boundary specified in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 and could possibly be permitted development in any case. It also has no facing windows. Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/17/3190675 3 11. Both extensions are set well away from properties to the rear and, as they are single storey, should not cause significant loss of privacy there. I conclude that the proposal does not unduly affect living conditions at neighbouring properties. It therefore also accords with the aims of DMP Policy DM DC5, dLP Policy LP8 and the SPD, to protect the amenities of occupants of neighbouring properties. Conditions 12. As the development has been carried out satisfactorily, I see no need for the standard conditions regarding plans and materials. I note that the application specifies white render, rather than grey, but find no objection to this colour for this extension. A condition is required, however, restricting use of the extensions’ flat roofs to protect neighbours from intrusion and loss of privacy. Conclusion 13. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. Les Greenwood INSPECTOR