First floor extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 May 2017 by D Cramond BSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/18/3196114 2b Cedar Avenue, Twickenham, TW2 7HE  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 Ms M Chan against the decision of Richmond Upon Thames London Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/3654/HOT, dated 3 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 1 December 2017.  The development proposed is a first floor extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor extension at 2b Cedar Avenue, Twickenham, TW2 7HE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/3654/HOT, dated 3 October 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 development 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: 01, 02, 03, 04 (Proposed Ground Floor Plan), 04 (Proposed 1st Floor Plan) & 06. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on, firstly, the character and appearance of the locality and, secondly, on the living conditions for neighbours. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a small bungalow with accommodation in the roof and a rear dormer. It is on a modest plot relative to prevailing sizes of rear gardens in particular and it originates from the conversion of a domestic garage. The locality is very varied in terms of house types, sizes and designs, is of established residential character and is generally pleasing in terms of appearance. The proposal is, effectively, to convert this building to a two storey home by extending existing principal vertical walls upwards and using a hipped roof over this. Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/18/3196114 2 Character and appearance 4. The Council is concerned that the proposal by reason of its size, location and close proximity to other properties would result in a cramped form of overdevelopment detrimental to the visual amenities of the streetscene. 5. Certainly the scheme would result in two storey development running along both side boundaries but this would be mitigated visually by space and single storey buildings abutting beyond these boundaries. The existing building already has vertical side walls which are taller than norm for a bungalow structure. The locality is one where large buildings, and semi-detached pairs, and terraces do characteristically make good use of plot width. The planned hipped roof, combined with the sloping away upwards of the main roofs on the adjoining properties would help to create some sense of, and actual, space at upper level. The completed building would be markedly less in scale, in virtually all dimensions, than the two adjoining properties and would not be jarring on the eye from the street. The rear garden would be below the norm and not ideal but anomalies do occur in urban areas. It would offer some outside amenity space and in visual terms other gardens beyond at a right angle would help to give some sense of space in the wider, generally non- public, scene. On a practical level public park recreation is available nearby. 6. To my mind the building as it stands looks somewhat incongruous and this proposal would only help rectify the situation. In short, for the reasons I note above, I would differ from the Council and would not class this scheme as harmful to visual amenity. 7. Policy CP7 of the Council’s Core Strategy (CS) and Policy DM DC1 of the DMP are relevant. Taken together they call for, amongst other matters, protection of local distinctiveness with suitable design, scale and massing sympathetic to setting. This is reflected in the objectives of the Council’s SPD 'House Extensions and External Alterations' (2015) (SPD). This document cannot be expected to cover every eventuality and whilst the SPD would generally seek subordination of an extension to a host property there must be times when exceptions would not be harmful and this is one instance where flexibility should be applied. 8. In all the circumstances I conclude that the proposal would not conflict with the cited development plan policies or the aesthetic purposes of the SPD. Living conditions 9. The Council fears that the scheme would be overbearing, over-shadowing and visually intrusive to neighbouring properties. However taking into account orientation, mutual relationships of principal rear walls, the nature of boundary screening, property stand-offs via single storey elements, the lack of any addition to existing footprint, the position and nature of neighbouring windows, the current existence of a dormer window in the appeal property, and a relatively modest increase in overall height embodied within the scheme I am not persuaded on any of these matters. The Appellant’s Daylight / Sunlight Assessment provides helpful evidence on those specific matters and I have no reason to disagree with its benign findings. The scheme would have a tight relationship to adjoining homes and gardens but I would not class it as unduly cramped and it would be broadly on a par with the juxtaposition of many homes in this locality. Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/18/3196114 3 10. CS Policy CP7 and DMP Policy DM DC5 seek, amongst other matters, to prevent harm to the amenities of neighbours. I conclude that this scheme would not run contrary to these policies for the reasons I have given; it would also not conflict with the parallel objective of the SPD. Conditions 11. The Council reasonably suggests the standard commencement condition along with a condition that works are to be carried out in accordance with listed, approved, plans as this provides certainty. The suggested condition requiring the use of matching materials is also appropriate in the interests of visual amenity. Overall conclusion 12. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would not have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the locality or on the living conditions of neighbours. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. D Cramond INSPECTOR