Single-storey rear extension
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Extensions
Residential Amenity
Fallback Position
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 13 May 2021
by R. Jones BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 13 July 2021.
Appeal Ref: APP/K3605/D/21/3269079
42a The Roundway, Claygate, Surrey KT10 0DW
• 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 Samantha Stewart against the decision of Elmbridge Borough
Council.
• The application Ref 2020/2070, dated 5 November 2020, was refused by notice dated
6 January 2021.
• The development proposed is a single-storey rear extension.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single-storey
rear extension at 42a The Roundway, Claygate, Surrey KT10 0DW in
accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2020/2070, dated 5
November 2020, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following
conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans: 3693684-001 to 006; 3693684-011 to
017; and 3693684-020.
Application for costs
2. An application for costs was made by Ms Samantha Stewart against Elmbridge
Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Procedural Matter
3. I have taken the description of development in the banner heading above from
the Council’s decision notice because it more accurately describes the proposal
before me than part 3 of the planning application form. I have, however,
removed ‘retrospective’ from the description as this is not an act of
development.
4. I saw from my site visit that the single-storey rear extension has been built
and my decision is made on this basis.
Main Issue
5. The main issue in this case is the effect of the single-storey rear extension on
the living conditions of the neighbours at No.42 The Roundway with regard
outlook and daylight.
Appeal Decision APP/K3605/D/21/3269079
2
Reasons
6. No.42a The Roundway (No.42a) is a two-storey mid terrace house. In June
2019, the Council determined that Prior Approval was not required for a single-
storey rear extension measuring 3.5m in depth and a maximum 2.74m in
height (ref. 2019/1368). This is a fallback position to which I afford significant
weight (the fallback scheme) because there is a real prospect that it could be
implemented should this appeal fail.
7. The single-storey rear extension that has been built is around 3.62m in depth
and 2.85m in height to the eaves of the flat roof. There is a glazed lantern
rooflight located centrally within the roof that is an additional 0.65m in height.
On the Council’s own figures, the extension would be only 0.12m greater in
depth and 0.3m greater in height than the fallback scheme.
8. The Council’s Design and Character Supplementary Planning Document (2012)
(SPD) uses the 45-degree rule as a ‘useful tool’ in assessing the effect of new
development on the amenity of neighbours. The guidance is that a single
storey extension should not impinge on a 45-degree line from the outer edge of
the neighbours nearest habitable window at a distance of less than 8m. A
single storey rear extension to No.42a would breach this 45-degree line from
the closest windows of its neighbour at No.42 The Roundway (No.42) at a
depth, as accepted by the appellant, of around 1m. Given the depth of the
extension now built, of 3.62m, there is a clear technical breach of the SPD
guidance.
9. However, the standard must be set in context and the SPD (in its Companion
Guide: Home Extensions) states that each application should be treated on its
merits. In this case, the fallback scheme has a depth of 3.5m from the existing
rear elevation of No.42a and therefore would itself breach the 45-degree line.
The depth of the rear extension would increase by only 0.12m over the fallback
scheme and this would not result in a perceptible difference in daylight to the
conservatory windows on the rear elevation of adjoining No.42. The orientation
of the extension to the north of No.42 also means there is unlikely to be a
significant loss of light.
10. The fallback scheme was designed with a flat roof with a parapet upstand on
the party wall with the adjoining neighbours at No.42 and No.44 The
Roundway. The height to the eaves was 2.55m and therefore, without allowing
for the upstands, the extension is now around 0.3m higher when measured
from the lower ground patio level (as shown on the submitted drawings). The
rear building line of the extension is set slightly forward of the conservatory of
No.42 and this increase in height would therefore be discernible. Given,
however, the very minimal increase in height I am not persuaded that it would
appear overbearing when viewed from either the rear windows of No.42 or its
garden.
11. Consequently, the ground floor rear extension would not cause harm to the
living conditions of the neighbours at No.42. Although there would be a
technical breach of the SPD guidance in respect of the 45-degree line, there
would be no conflict with Policy CS17 of the Elmbridge Core Strategy (2011) or
Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan (2015)
which, amongst other things, require proposals to protect amenity and offer
appropriate outlook and adequate daylight, sunlight.
Appeal Decision APP/K3605/D/21/3269079
3
Other Matters
12. As described above, the single storey rear extension would not significantly
change the overall scale and form of the fallback scheme. Whilst there would
be a noticeable increase in height across the full width of No.42a, the extension
does not overly dominate or appear an incongruous addition to the rear
elevation and has been finished in brickwork and windows to match the
existing. I therefore find it causes no harm to the character and appearance of
No.42a or the wider area.
13. Numerous third parties have raised concerns regarding the construction of the
extension on the party wall of No.42 and potential encroachment. Concerns
have also been raised in respect of the quality of the construction, structural
problems, and restrictive covenants associated with the appeal property. These
are all either civil or legal matters or fall within the scope of Building
Regulations. They are not therefore for me to consider in the determination of
this planning appeal.
Conditions
14. Because the ground floor rear extension has already been built, I do not
consider it necessary to include a condition requiring the materials used in the
construction of the external surfaces to match those used in the existing
building, as suggested by the Council. However, in the interests of clarity and
to provide certainty, I do consider it necessary to impose a condition that
specifies the approved drawings.
Conclusion
15. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.
R.Jones
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 13 May 2021
by R. Jones BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 13 July 2021.
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/K3605/D/21/3269079
42a The Roundway, Claygate, Surrey KT10 0DW
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Ms Samantha Stewart for a full award of costs against
Elmbridge Borough Council.
• The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for a single-storey rear
extension.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below.
Reasons
2. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded
against a party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party
applying for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal
process.
3. Planning permission was refused by the East Area Town Planning Sub-
Committee against the professional advice of officers. This in itself does not
constitute unreasonable behaviour and Members are not bound to accept the
recommendation of their officers. An award of costs would only be warranted
where the Council cannot produce relevant evidence to show that there were
reasonable planning grounds for taking a contrary view.
4. The case made by the appellant is that Members were heavily influenced by
local objections and ignored an extant prior approval for a rear ground floor
extension, in doing do failing to give it due weight as a fall-back position. The
planning application was refused on the grounds that the height and depth of
the extension, compared to the prior approval scheme, would result in harm to
the living conditions of the neighbours at No.42 The Roundway. It is clear from
this and the published Minutes of the East Area Planning Sub-Committee that
the prior approval, as a fall-back position, did form part of their consideration
of the planning application.
5. While I have come to a different view to the Council, from the information
before me, I cannot agree that the Council ignored, or failed to take the fall-
back position into account. The weight to be given to any such fallback is a
matter for the decision-maker according to the circumstances of a case.
Costs Decision APP/K3605/D/21/3269079
2
6. However, the PPG explains that local planning authorities are at risk of an
award of costs where they prevent or delay development which should clearly
be permitted, having regard to its accordance with the development plan,
national policy and any other material considerations. These circumstances
apply here; the Council has failed to produce any substantive evidence to
explain its concerns or counter the evidence provided by the appellant.
7. In this case, even on the Council’s own figures, the ground floor rear extension
would only result in an increase in depth of 0.12m and height of 0.3m over the
fall-back scheme. The Council have provided no explanation of why such a
modest increase in dimensions would be materially harmful to the living
conditions of the neighbours. There is therefore no evidence before me as to
why there were reasonable planning grounds for taking a view contrary to the
advice of officers.
8. For the reasons given, I find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in
unnecessary or wasted expense, as described in the PPG, has been
demonstrated and that a full award of costs is justified.
9. Other concerns raised by the appellant concerning the decision-making and
conduct of the East Area Town Planning Sub-Committee are beyond the remit
of this application for costs.
Costs Order
10. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act
1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended,
and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Elmbridge Borough Council shall pay to Ms Samantha Stewart, the costs of the
appeal proceedings described in the heading of this decision; such costs to be
assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed.
11. The applicant is now invited to submit to Elmbridge Borough Council, to whom
a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to
reaching agreement as to the amount.
R. Jones
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.