Erection of a single storey side/rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 March 2021 by S Poole BA(Hons) DipArch MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 April 2021. Appeal Ref: APP/L5240/D/21/3267417 91 Waddington Avenue, Coulsdon CR5 1QJ • 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 K Benson against the decision of Council of the London Borough of Croydon. • The application Ref 20/03836/HSE, dated 25 August 2020, was refused by notice dated 27 November 2020. • The development proposed is the erection of a single storey side/rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: (i) the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene; and (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of 93 Waddington Avenue, with particular regard to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached house, which is located in a residential area comprising a mix of detached and semi-detached houses and bungalows. It forms one end of a group of 6 semi-detached houses of similar appearance. Most of these houses include attached garages to the side. These protrude slightly forward of the front elevations of the houses and have small elements of sloping roof above their frontages. Due to their similar appearance, size and the regular gaps between them, the 6 houses form a relatively unified group. This unity contributes to the character and appearance of the street scene. 4. To the side of the appeal property there is a bungalow, 93 Waddington Avenue. This is set on lower ground than the appeal property and therefore the flank elevation of the appeal property is exposed to views from the road. 5. The proposal would comprise the erection of a single-storey side and rear wrap-around extension with a mix of flat and shallow pitched roofs. The floor Appeal Decision APP/L5240/D/21/3267417 2 level within this addition would be five steps above rear garden level and a similar distance above ground level at the front. As a consequence, the addition would be relatively tall and include a significant area of roof slope facing the street. This would be an overly prominent and incongruous element in the street scene and would harm the unity of the group of semi-detached houses. In addition, due to its height, width and mixed roof forms the rear part of the proposal would be a cumbersome form of addition that would detract from the appearance of the host property. 6. Due to its siting, height, width and appearance I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene. It therefore fails to accord with Policies SP4.1, SP4.2 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) (CLP) which, amongst other matters, require development to respect the pattern, layout, scale, height and massing of the surrounding area. It is also contrary to the aims of Croydon's Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2019) (SPD). Living conditions 7. The proposal would result in the formation of a long and tall flank wall close to the boundary shared with No.93. This would not extend appreciably beyond the rear or front elevations of No.93 and would not therefore reduce outlook from rear and front-facing rooms. There is a rooflight in the sloping roof of No.93 close to the boundary shared with the appeal property. This aperture is likely to be above eye-level in the room it serves and therefore outlook is likely to be towards the sky and, perhaps to a degree, the roof of the appeal property. Given this current situation, I am satisfied that the occupiers of No.93 would retain sufficient outlook via the rooflight with the appeal proposal in place. 8. On this matter I therefore conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of No.93. It therefore accords with CLP Policies SP4.1, SP4.2 and DM10 and the SPD in this particular respect. The policies require development proposals to ensure that the amenity of the occupants of adjoining buildings is protected. Conclusion 9. For the reasons set out under the first main issue, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail. S Poole INSPECTOR