Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 January 2018 by Mark Dakeyne BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T5150/D/17/3190831 160 Preston Road, Wembley HA9 8NJ  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph A4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO).  The appeal is made by Mr B Bhudia against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Brent.  The application Ref 17/3653, dated 19 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 29 September 2017.  The development proposed is a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The provisions of the GPDO require that the local planning authority assess the proposed development solely on the basis of its impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. My determination of this appeal has been made in the same manner, noting the representations made by the occupiers of No 158 Preston Road. 3. There is another appeal relating to No 160 Preston Road currently before me1. However, as that is in connection with a refusal of planning permission and is for a different form of development, I have dealt with it in a separate decision. Reasons 4. The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 158 Preston Road, with particular reference to outlook and daylight. 5. Nos 158 and 160 are a pair of semi-detached houses on the eastern side of Preston Road. The extension would abut the common boundary with No 158 and project out by some 5.7m from what appear to be the original rear elevations. No 158 has French windows serving a living room close to the boundary. The base of the doors sits above the garden level such that occupants will be able to see over the dividing fence. 6. Due to its depth and height, the blank flank wall of the extension would appear overpowering when seen through the French windows and create a sense of enclosure. When combined with the existing two-storey outrigger on No 158 1 Appeal Ref: APP/T5150/D/17/3191199 Appeal Decision APP/T5150/D/17/3190831 2 occupiers would have the sense of feeling hemmed in with their outlook restricted by buildings either side. Although views down the long rear garden would remain between the existing and proposed projecting buildings, the outlook for occupiers of No 158 would be unacceptably harmed. 7. That part of the extension furthest away from the rear elevation would reduce in height. Only part of the extension would be visible above the 2m boundary fence. The outlook from the ground floor room is already affected by the two- storey outriggers on both Nos 158 and 160 and the dividing fence. However, to my mind these factors would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm caused by the extension. 8. With regard to daylight reaching the living room, there may be some diminution as a result of the development. However, taking into account the position and height of the existing outriggers and the proposal’s single-storey height, the loss of daylight is unlikely to be significant. As the extension would be to the north of No 158 there would be no material loss of sunlight. 9. Permitted development rights under Paragraph A1(f) of the GPDO exist for extensions up to 3m deep for this type of property without the need to seek prior approval. However, such an extension would be significantly less harmful than the appeal proposal which would be almost twice as deep. 10. I have taken into account the appeal decisions referred to by the appellant. From what I can ascertain most do not appear to be directly comparable with the proposal before me. The extensions considered in West Ealing and Kingsbury were not as deep. That in Small Heath was at a lower ground level than the neighbouring property. In Werrington the extension related to a detached house with a gap to its neighbour. With regard to Tinsley there are greater similarities but I am not aware of the specific layout of the properties so cannot be sure that the circumstances are directly comparable. In any event I have considered the appeal on its own merits having regard to what I have read and seen. 11. In conclusion, whilst the loss of daylight would not be significant, the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of 158 Preston Road, with particular reference to outlook. The Council has not referred to any development plan policies in its decision. But there is no statutory requirement to determine a prior approval application in accordance with the development plan as the principle of development is established through the GPDO. 12. I have given some weight to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document2 that suggests a 3m limit to the depth of ground floor rear extensions. However, as the provisions of the GPDO suggest that larger extensions may be acceptable in principle, my decision is primarily based on a site-specific assessment. 13. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. Mark Dakeyne INSPECTOR 2 Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD2 adopted January 2018