Single storey rear extension to the existing property including some minor interior remodelling

Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 7 June 2018 by Les Greenwood MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 25TH June 2018 Appeal A Ref: APP/W5780/D/18/3196933 17 Woodlands Avenue, Wanstead, London E11 3RA  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 Ash Patel against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge.  The application Ref 5641/17 was refused by notice dated 13 February 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey rear extension to the existing property including some minor interior remodelling. Appeal B Ref: APP/W5780/D/18/3196985 17 Woodlands Avenue, Wanstead, London E11 3RA  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 Ash Patel against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Redbridge.  The application Ref 5644/17 was refused by notice dated 12 February 2018.  The development proposed is a loft conversion with a rear flat roof dormer. Decisions Appeal A Ref: APP/W5780/D/18/3196933 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension to the existing property including some minor interior remodelling in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 5641/17, dated 18 December 2017, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule. Appeal B Ref: APP/W5780/D/18/3196985 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a loft conversion with a rear flat roof dormer in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 5644/17, dated 11 December 2017, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule. Preliminary matters and clarifications 3. The descriptions of the proposed developments listed above are extracted from the much longer descriptions given on the application forms, which also contain a substantial amount of background information and justification that does not actually describe the proposed development. Appeal Decisions APP/W5780/D/18/3196933 and APP/W5780/D/18/3196985 2 4. The materials section of the application form for appeal A refers to re-cladding the entire house with whitewashed brick. This is not, however, included in the description of the proposed development on the application form and is not detailed on the submitted plans or in the Design and Access Statement. I do not consider such cladding to be part of the appeal proposal. 5. The plans for these 2 appeals, somewhat confusingly, have the same reference numbers but show different proposals. I have sought to clarify this in the wording of the relevant conditions. 6. I understand that since these applications were refused the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (LP) has been adopted, replacing the Council’s Core Strategy and its Borough Wide Primary Policies. I therefore refer to the LP Policies in these decisions. Main Issues: Appeal A 7. The main issues are: i) whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Aldersbrook Conservation Area; and ii) the effect of the proposal on living conditions at the neighbouring property 19 Woodland Avenue in terms of impacts on light and outlook. Main Issue: Appeal B 8. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Aldersbrook Conservation Area. Reasons Character and appearance (both appeals) 9. Woodland Avenue is a residential street lined by attractive and well-detailed early 20th Century houses. The Council’s Aldersbrook Conservation Area Care and Design Guide (CADG) records that the estate was largely built between 1899 and 1910 to help meet demand for suburban residences for the emergent middle classes, with the developers making use of a wealth of inexpensive mass produced ornament to provide a remarkable range of enrichment and decoration, giving variety to the new villas. I agree with the CADG that this is the essence of Aldersbrook’s special character. The value and significance of the area stems from the harmonious blend of high quality detailing and design, especially on the front elevations. As is often the case, the rear elevations are much plainer and are of lesser importance. 10. 17 Woodlands is a typical semi-detached house with a single storey, flat roofed extension at the back, across the full width of the house, and a loft conversion with 2 small rear dormers. The proposals would replace the rear extension with another flat roofed extension, about 2m deeper in plan but lower in height and replace the 2 dormers with a much larger flat roofed dormer. 11. The proposed ground floor extension would be set down about 0.5m below the level of the existing extension, helping to minimise its impact. It would not be seen from the public realm and would not be disproportionate to this reasonably substantial house or its long rear garden. Its modest contemporary Appeal Decisions APP/W5780/D/18/3196933 and APP/W5780/D/18/3196985 3 style would complement rather than detract from the architecture of the house. The Council is concerned that it would be over half as deep as the original house but its Supplementary Planning Document Householder Design Guide (HDG) states that there is no specific rule governing the maximum depth of single storey rear extensions. 12. The proposed new dormer window would sit within a row of very similar dormer structures, which are so prevalent in this particular part of the street that they now largely define local character. It would occupy almost the full width of the roof but would be set well up from the eaves and down from the ridge, so that it would not overly dominate the rear roof – even though it would not fully comply with the limits set out in the HDG. Its dimensions would be similar to others nearby and again its modest contemporary design would complement the house. 13. The proposed dormer would not be significantly visible in public views and would not be a remarkable or incongruous feature in any views. I note the CADG’s advice that large box dormers are always very harmful to the character of the house, but each case must be assessed in light of its own circumstances. 14. I conclude that both proposals would preserve the character and the appearance of the conservation area. They therefore accord with the aims of LP Policies LP26, LP30 and LP33, to secure high quality in all development, conserving, protecting and enhancing the Borough’s heritage assets. The Council has also quoted Policy LP34 in its notice of decision for Appeal A, but this does not appear to be directly relevant. Living conditions (Appeal A only) 15. Like the existing extension, the proposed ground floor rear extension would sit on the boundary with No 19 near to both a ground floor window and the garden space immediately to the rear of that house. It would be significantly deeper than the existing extension but its lower height would roughly balance its impact in comparison to the existing situation. 16. I have not been given any information regarding the type of room No 19’s nearest window serves, so have assumed that it is a habitable room. I consider that the amenity value of the garden space at the back of the house is also important, in any case. I am nevertheless satisfied that the property would retain good daylighting from the sky and would retain a largely open southerly aspect for direct sunlighting. The lower wall as proposed would not be so imposing or overbearing on occupiers of No 19 that it would unduly affect their outlook. 17. I conclude that the proposal in Appeal A would not significantly affect living conditions at No 19. It therefore also accords with the aims of LP Policies LP26 and LP30 to ensure that development does not result in an adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers, including in relation to daylight/sunlight and outlook. Appeal Decisions APP/W5780/D/18/3196933 and APP/W5780/D/18/3196985 4 Conditions 18. I impose conditions specifying the relevant plans and materials to provide certainty and to protect the character and appearance of the house and the conservation area. Conclusion 19. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that both appeals should succeed. Les Greenwood INSPECTOR SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS - Appeal A Ref: APP/W5780/D/18/3196933 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans insofar as these show a proposed single storey rear extension including some minor interior remodelling: 01.01.100, 01.10.100, 01.10.200 and 01.10.300, submitted as part of application Ref 5641/17. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall be as detailed in the application form and approved plans. SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS - Appeal B Ref: APP/W5780/D/18/3196985 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans insofar as these show a proposed loft conversion with a rear flat roofed dormer: 01.01.100, 01.10.100, 01.10.200 and 01.10.300, submitted as part of application Ref 5644/17. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall be as detailed in the application form and approved plans.