Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 June 2018 by Tim Wood BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 20 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T5720/D/18/3198170 68 Rougemont Avenue, Morden, Surrey SM4 5PZ  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under a development order.  The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Nolan against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Merton.  The application Ref 18/P0120, dated 3 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 14 February 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effects of the proposed extension on neighbours. Reasons 3. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, (GPDO) at Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A sets out that the enlargement improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse is permitted development. It then sets out a number of restrictions. Relevant to this appeal, it states that: the extension should be single storey and; it should not extend beyond the rear wall of the original house by more than 6 metres; the extension should not extend beyond a wall which fronts a highway and forms a side wall of the original dwellinghouse. The GPDO requires that the prior approval of such extensions should be sought from the local planning authority in relation to the effects of the extension on occupiers of adjacent premises only in circumstances where any owner or occupier of any adjacent premises has objected to the proposed development. An objection has been made by the occupier of an adjacent premises. 4. The appeal property forms part of a terrace of houses of a similar style and design. The ground falls from the back of the houses and there is a slight fall in the land such that No 70 has a floor level marginally higher than the appeal site. The proposed extension would be 5.175m deep and would have a pitched roof with a ridge running rearwards. It would be the full width of the house (5.35m), a maximum eaves height of 3m and a ridge height of 4m maximum. Appeal Decision APP/T5720/D/18/3198170 2 5. At the rear of this and other houses, there is an immediate fall in level from the internal floor level, by means of patios/hard-surfacing down to garden level. No 66 has a single storey rear extension here of around 2m in depth. This means that the height of the proposed extension, relative to the adjacent neighbouring levels, would be less where it is close to the house and getting greater. The plans indicate that the full height of the extension would be seen for over half its length as the neighbouring raised areas are around 2m in depth. From these raised areas, the submitted plans indicate that the eaves height would be around 1.5m from No 70 and 1.75m from No 66. 6. Whilst I appreciate that the ground levels described above would reduce the visual effects of the extension where it is close to the house, its considerable depth and height as it extends into the garden, would mean that it would have a considerable impact when seen from the neighbouring properties, including from their garden areas. In relation to No 66, this may be somewhat tempered by the extension to that property, but I still consider its effects would be considerable. In relation to No 70, I consider that there would be a clear and unacceptable visual effect; the proposal would appear large, dominating and overbearing as a result of its size. It would be contrary to Policies DMD2 and DMD3 of the Adopted Sites and Policies Plan 2014. 7. I have taken account of all other matters raised by the appellants, including the presence of other extensions within the area, some of which I was able to see at my visit. However, I find nothing which is sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. S T Wood INSPECTOR