Erection of a first floor level rear extension

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 April 2018 by David Fitzsimon MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/H5960/D/18/3193493 83 Norroy Road, London SW15 1PH  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 Behrooz Sharif against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Wandsworth.  The application Ref 2017/4639, dated 10 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 24 October 2017.  The development proposed is the erection of a first floor level rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. There are two main issues in this case. Firstly, the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Secondly, its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to outlook, access to natural light and privacy. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal relates to a traditional terraced property with a three storey outrigger projecting from the main rear elevation. A single storey flat roof extension has been added to the rear of the outrigger. This addition is an awkward shape in so far as it sits closer to the boundary with No. 85 Norroy Road than the existing outrigger, rather than following its lines. The introduction of an additional storey in the manner proposed, again with a flat roof, would exaggerate this awkwardness and would fail to respect the traditional design detailing, proportions and footprint of the host dwelling. As a result, the character and appearance of the host dwelling would be harmed. Outlook and natural light 4. The existing three storey outrigger of the appeal dwelling is handed with that of the neighbouring house, No. 85 Norroy Road. The outriggers are quite deep which creates something of a corridor between them. The existing single storey extension projects beyond the two outriggers by just under 4 metres. The Appeal Decision APP/H5960/D/18/3193493 2 introduction of an additional storey on top of this existing extension would exaggerate the corridor effect and would appear overly dominant and enclosing, especially when viewed from ground floor rooms at the rear of No. 85. It would also increase the shadow cast on these spaces at certain times of the day, thereby reducing the levels of natural light available to them. These factors lead me to the view that the proposed extension would harm the outlook and levels of natural light available to the occupiers of No. 85 Norroy Road. 5. The outrigger of the other neighbouring house, No. 81 Norroy Road, is attached to that of the appeal dwelling. A modest single storey lean-to addition projects from the rear outrigger of No. 81, along the shared boundary. This arrangement means that the proposed extension would not appear dominant when viewed from the ground floor of this neighbouring property. Whilst the side elevation of the proposed extension would be visible from the first floor window on the rear elevation of the outrigger of No. 81, I am satisfied that at about 3 metres, the level of rearward projection would not be excessive. As a result, the extension would not appear overly dominant when viewed from the room served by this first floor window and would not unduly restrict the levels of natural light available to it. Privacy 6. The proposed extension does not include windows to its side elevations. Whilst a window would look back at the rear elevation of No. 85 from the return, this would be a secondary window serving a kitchen and could be fixed and fitted with obscured glazing to prevent overlooking. A large window would be introduced to the rear elevation which again, would serve a kitchen. To my mind, the introduction of this window would not result in significantly greater overlooking over the gardens of the nearby dwellings than the levels facilitated by the existing windows located at first and second floor level on the rear elevation of the appeal dwelling. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of privacy for nearby residents. Other matters 7. The appellant argues that similar extensions have been added to Nos. 113 and 115 Norroy Road. However, I do not know the precise planning circumstances behind these particular developments. In any event, I have considered the appeal proposal on its individual merits. Overall Conclusions 8. The proposal would not unacceptably reduce levels of privacy for nearby residents and it would not unduly harm the outlook or the levels of natural light available to the occupiers of No. 81 Norroy Road. However, it would have an unacceptably detrimental impact on the quality of the outlook and the levels of natural light available to the occupiers of 85 Norroy Road. In addition, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling. In these respects, it conflicts with policies DMS1 and DMH5 of the adopted London Borough of Wandsworth Development Management Policies Document. 9. Accordingly, the appeal does not succeed. David Fitzsimon INSPECTOR