Single storey orangery to replace existing and part two storey extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 July 2018 by J Bell-Williamson MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/18/3199061 6 Greenlink Walk, Richmond TW9 4AF  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 Shukla against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames.  The application Ref 17/4545/HOT, dated 20 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 2 March 2018.  The development proposed is single storey orangery to replace existing and part two storey extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey orangery to replace existing and part two storey extension at 6 Greenlink Walk, Richmond TW9 4AF. The permission is granted in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 17/4545/HOT, dated 20 December 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 10845/02 Revision A (proposed plans and elevations), 10845/03 Revision A (block plan) and 10845/04 Revision A (site location plan). 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed two storey extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a modern three storey detached dwelling in a wider residential setting of single dwellings and apartment buildings. Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/18/3199061 2 4. The Council has not raised any concerns about the proposed orangery and I agree that as a replacement for the existing single storey conservatory with some additional limited development, this would not be harmful. 5. The other element of the appeal proposal is a two storey extension that would effectively infill the setback half of the rear elevation to provide a consistent building line across the whole property. The current stepped elevation to the rear with the large gable standing forward of the other half of the property provides some interest and variety in terms of the property’s character and appearance. 6. However, the additional development proposed would be of limited depth, would not interrupt the roof form and would include matching materials. It would not be of sufficient additional depth to add considerable bulk or mass to the rear of the building and its effects in this regard would be further mitigated by the flat roof. Moreover, the overall extent of this change would be seen in the context of the orangery, which would largely obscure the changes as they affect the ground floor level. Overall, therefore, the changes to the host dwelling as a result of this extension would be limited and would not alter its character and appearance to the extent that this would cause material harm. 7. I acknowledge that there is some uniformity of appearance between No 6 and its immediate neighbours. This is principally between Nos 4 and 6, which appear as a similar pair; No 8 is set further away and views of it to the rear are shielded by boundary planting and other vegetation. The main feature that creates uniformity of appearance between the appeal property and No 4 are the large rear-facing gables. The minimal depth of the extension plus its lack of effect on the host property’s roof means that the overall effect of this visual relationship would largely be unchanged. Furthermore, all three properties have different forms of single storey extensions to the rear, which means that the visual uniformity is not comprehensive. 8. I have had regard to the appeal decision at No 1 Greenlink Walk (ref APP/L5810/D/16/3165150), but due to the different context and design of the surrounding dwellings I agree with the Council that this is not directly comparable to the current proposal. 9. Accordingly, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed two storey extension would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Consequently, the proposal is not contrary to the following development plan policies: CP7 of the Core Strategy, which requires all new development to maintain and improve the local environment; DM DC1 of the Development Management Plan and LP1 of the Local Plan, which require new development to be of high design quality. These policies are consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework. Conditions 10. Of the Council’s suggested conditions I have imposed the standard time condition and, to ensure the proper implementation of the proposal, one requiring development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. I agree also that a condition requiring the external materials used to match those of the existing building is needed in the interests of the appearance of the host dwelling and wider area. Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/18/3199061 3 11. The Council suggests a further condition to prevent use of the extended roof as a terrace or balcony to protect neighbouring occupiers’ amenity. I consider that this is unnecessary as the depth of the extension is limited to the extent that the flat roof created could not practicably be used for such a purpose. 12. For the reasons given above it is concluded that the appeal should succeed. J Bell-Williamson INSPECTOR