GF rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 May 2018 by Alex Hutson MATP CMLI MArborA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/F5540/D/18/3193715 42 Amhurst Gardens, Isleworth TW7 6AJ  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO).  The appeal is made by Mr Hassan Harb against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow.  The application Ref 00036/42/PA3, dated 10 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 15 November 2017.  The development proposed is “GF rear extension”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matters 2. The Council’s decision notice describes the proposal as ‘Ground floor rear extension 6 metres deep, maximum height of 3.5 metres, 3 metres high to the eaves’. This provides a more detailed and accurate description than that provided on the application form and I have considered the appeal on this basis. 3. The Council’s decision notice cites its ‘Residential Extension Guidelines 2003’. However, since the date of its decision notice and prior to the lodging of the appeal, the Council adopted its new Residential Extension Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document 2017 (SPD). I have considered the appeal on this basis. 4. The provisions of the GPDO, under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Part A.4(7) require the local planning authority to 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 on the same basis. Main issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 44 Amhurst Gardens with particular regard to outlook and sunlight. Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/18/3193715 2 Reasons 6. The appeal property is a two storey end of terrace dwelling located within a predominantly residential area. It has a single storey rear element which runs approximately 3.5 metres (m) along the shared boundary with No 44 and beyond the rear elevation of this property. No 44 has some ground floor windows/glazed doors within its rear elevation which serve a habitable room and which are within close proximity to the shared boundary with the appeal property. 7. The existing single storey rear element is oriented approximately southwest of these windows/glazed doors. In its current form, it is likely to provide some level of enclosure to the rear facing windows/glazed doors of No 44 and the area of garden close to these windows/glazed doors. It is also likely to have some effect on the level of sunlight reaching these windows/glazed doors and area of garden near to them. However, having regard to the orientation of the existing single storey rear element and the east to west path of the sun, any shading of these windows/glazed doors and area of garden near to them is likely to be limited to the late afternoon/early evening. 8. The proposal would effectively increase the amount of built form along the shared boundary with No 44 by approximately 2.5m. Given the existing presence of the single storey rear element and its orientation to No 44, this increase in built form would be unlikely to substantially impact upon levels of sunlight reaching the property of No 44. 9. However, the increased depth of built form, combined with its height noticeably greater than the height of the existing boundary fence which runs between the appeal property and No 44, would provide a considerably greater level of enclosure to the rear facing windows/patio doors and area of garden close to them than currently exists. This would appear overbearing for the occupiers of No 44 and would have an adverse effect on their outlook and the enjoyment of their home and garden. Thus, the proposal would result in material harm to their living conditions in this regard. 10. This would be contrary to Policies CC2 and SC7 of the London Borough of Hounslow Local Plan 2015-2030 Volume One adopted 2015 (Local Plan) which require, amongst other things, development to provide adequate outlook, to minimise overbearingness and to not result in harm to the amenity of neighbouring residents. It would also conflict with the guidance of the Council’s SPD which advises that single storey rear extensions should not cause unacceptable enclosure to neighbours. 11. The Council also cites conflict with Policy CC1 of the Local Plan. However, this policy does not appear to relate to living conditions matters and is therefore not relevant to this appeal. Other matters 12. The appellant makes reference to other examples of rear extensions in the area. However, no detailed information has been provided to allow any informed comparisons to be made between those examples and the proposal I am to consider under this appeal. I therefore afford them little weight and they do not justify an approval. In any event, each case must be determined on its own merits. Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/18/3193715 3 13. I note the appellant’s desire for a larger house to accommodate his family. However, such a personal benefit would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm to neighbour living conditions. In addition, I observed that the appellant has recently undertaken a roof extension and loft conversion. As this is not shown on the submitted plans or mentioned elsewhere, it is likely to have been undertaken since the application was submitted and the appeal lodged and is likely to have provided a generous increase in living space for the appellant and his family. Conclusion 14. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Alex Hutson INSPECTOR