Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 April 2018 by Graham M Garnham BA BPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 03 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W5780/D/18/3194731 18 Bush Road, Buckhurst Hill, IG9 6ER  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 Riad Alam against the decision of London Borough of Redbridge Council.  The application Ref 4350/17, dated 15 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 10 November 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 at 18 Bush Road, Buckhurst Hill, IG9 6ER in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 4350/17, dated 15 September 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: drawings 18 BR 0, 18 BR 01, 18 BR 02, 18 BR 03 [existing front elevation], 18BR 03 [existing first floor plan], 18 BR 04, 18 BR 05, 18 BR 06 & 18 BR 07. Main Issues 2. I consider that these are the effects of the proposal on firstly, the character and appearance of the property and its surroundings; and secondly, the living conditions of the occupiers of no.16 Bush Road, with respect to outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a modest, two storey mid-terrace house. It has an existing 1 metre deep, single storey full width rear extension. The proposal would project outwards a further 4.5 metres, with a flat roof 3 metres above ground level. First main issue – effect on character and appearance 4. The top of the extension would be level with the eaves line of the lean-to roof of the existing rear extension. As such it would be well below first floor window sill height, and clearly subordinate in height to the building as a whole. Both Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/18/3194731 2 houses either side appear to have full width single storey rear extensions. This pattern would be replicated at the appeal site. Overall, and combined with the existing extension, the proposal would result in an addition of 5.5 metres to the depth of the house. On the ground, it would match the projection of the extension at no.20. This is described by the Council as a Prior Approval rear extension. Consequently this adjoining development gives an indication of the scale of rear extension that government policy can regard as acceptable. The extension at no.16 is 2.75 metres deep, with an eaves line to match that at the appeal site. I consider that a further 2.75 metres of projection at the appeal site would not be unduly incongruous or out of scale. 5. I was able to glimpse a variety of rear extensions along the road, from the rear garden of the appeal site. Some appeared to be of similar depth to the appeal proposal, those these may have been outbuildings close to the houses. It was not obvious that there was a prevailing local pattern to the rear of the terraces. The most visually intrusive features by far are the large, full width box dormers on the houses either side of no.18. These dominate visually this part of the terrace, and the appeal property. I consider that the proposal would not appear overly large or intrusive within the immediate and the wider context. 6. I conclude that the proposal would not detract materially from the character and appearance of the property and its surroundings. It would comply with the development plan policies cited by the Council. These are Strategic Policy 3 in the London Borough of Redbridge Core Strategy (2008); and Policies BD1 & BD5 in the Redbridge Borough Wide Primary Policies Development Plan Document (2008) [DPD]. The design standards of the strategic policy would be met. The scale, massing, style and design would be appropriate to the locality, and the extension would complement and not dominate the host house, thereby satisfying the DPD policies. The Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2012) [SPD] does not have a specific rule on the maximum depth of single storey rear extensions, but requires consideration to be given to the prevailing pattern of the street. Second main issue – effect on living conditions 7. The Council’s SPD says that the key concern for single storey rear extensions is to minimise adverse impacts on neighbouring dwellings where they abut habitable rooms. This means not blocking natural light and outlook to habitable rooms in neighbouring properties. However, guidance as to what constitutes a habitable room is less clear. The term is defined in Appendix A as being used when measuring the density of dwellings on any parcel of land. The term is actually used in relation to privacy, light and outlook, not with regards to density as usually understood. A kitchen is not normally considered to be a habitable room, unless it is over 13 square metres. I have not had regard to the ‘45 Degree Rule’, as the SPD applies this to two storey rear extensions. 8. These definitions are immaterial with regards to living conditions at no.20, as the proposal would be flush with the extension there, and have no material effect on living conditions within. However, the proposal would project beyond the extension at no.16. This has two windows with a glazed door in between on its outer face. There is a single room internally, which has the kitchen area adjoining the appeal site, and living spaces on the far side. Both outlook and light would be affected in the nearest window (kitchen side of the room), but not significantly so from the far window. The main impact on outlook and light Appeal Decision APP/W5780/D/18/3194731 3 within the house comes from its own full width verandah, which projects about a metre beyond the proposed outer end of the appeal extension. The Council says this verandah does not have planning permission. There is also a high fence on the common boundary, with a shallow gap between it and the sloping roof of the verandah. Light and sunlight would be prevented from passing through much of this gap, but I consider that the main effect would continue to be from the roof of the verandah itself. The proposal would project less than 3 metres beyond the neighbour's extension, from within which outlook is already severely limited by the verandah. In this situation, and with the living area within no.16 being furthest from the boundary, I consider on balance that the impact on outlook arising from the appeal proposal would not be unreasonable. 9. I conclude that the proposal would not unduly harm the living conditions of the occupiers of no.16 Bush Road, with respect to outlook. In the terms of Strategic Policy 3, it would respect the amenity of adjoining properties and the locality generally, and would satisfy Policy BD1 by not unreasonably restricting sunlight, daylight or privacy next door. The purposes of the Council’s SPD would not be prejudiced. Overall conclusion 10. I have found in favour of the proposal with respect to both main issues. 11. In addition, to secure a satisfactory appearance for the extension, I need to impose a planning condition requiring the use of matching materials. I also need to impose a condition requiring compliance with the approved plans, in the interests of certainty. 12. Subject to these conditions, I conclude overall that there is no reason to withhold planning permission, and I allow the appeal. G Garnham INSPECTOR