Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 July 2018 by Ian McHugh Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 July 2018 Appeal Ref: N1920/D/18/3201197 40 Falconer Road, Bushey,WD23 3AD  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 and Mrs Reiff against the decision of Hertsmere Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/2482/HSE, dated 20 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 1 March 2018.  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 40 Falconer Road, Bushey, WD23 3AD in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 17/2482/HSE, dated 20 December 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:1:1250 scale Site Location Plan; Existing and Proposed Site Layout – Drawing Number 285:11 rev A; Proposed Ground Floor Plan – Drawing Number 285:12 rev A; First Floor Plan Proposed – Drawing Number 285:13 revision A; and Proposed Elevations – Drawing Number 285:15 revision A. 3) The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issues 2. These are the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of numbers 38 and 42 Falconer Road (numbers 38 and 42), with particular regard to outlook; and the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. Reasons Living Conditions 3. The appeal property is a relatively narrow two storey detached dwelling with a two storey rear ‘outrigger’. A single storey lean-to extension is attached to the side of the outrigger. The dwelling is positioned within a densely built-up Appeal Decision APP/N1920/D/18/3201197 2 frontage on Falconer Road. It is separated from numbers 38 and 42 by single width pathways between the sides of the properties. 4. The proposal is to construct a single storey extension at the rear of the property. It would cover the full width of the dwelling and would project some 4.5m from the rear wall of the existing outrigger. The extension would have a shallow sloping roof at the sides with a flat central section. The development would provide additional kitchen/dining space at the property. It would built up to the boundary with number 42, whilst a pathway would be retained on the opposite side, adjoining number 38. 5. The Council contends that the extension would have an unacceptably overbearing and obtrusive impact on the outlook from numbers 38 and 42, because of its proposed depth and proximity to the shared side boundaries of the site. Policies SP1 and CS22 of the Council’s adopted Core Strategy, 2013 (CS) seek (amongst other things) to promote high quality design. In addition, Policy SADM30 of the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan 2016 (SADMPP) states that development should have limited impact on the amenity of the occupiers its neighbours in terms of (amongst other things) outlook. In my opinion, these policies are consistent with one of the core planning principles contained in paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which is to always seek to ensure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. 6. The Council also refers to its Supplementary Planning Document - Planning and Design Guide (2006) (SPD), which provides guidance on proposals for single storey extensions and their effect on neighbouring property. In particular, the SPD advocates that extensions should not project beyond lines drawn at 45o from the edges of front or rear facing neighbouring windows. It states that where extensions breach the 45o degree line, or extend more than 3.35m beyond the original rear building line, planning permission is likely to be refused. 7. It is clear from the submitted evidence that the appeal proposal would conflict with the guidance contained within the SPD, insofar that parts of the extension would be positioned beyond the 45o lines when drawn from the nearest windows at both numbers 38 and 42. The appellants acknowledge this conflict (at plan view), but argue that there is no harm to the occupants of either of the neighbouring dwellings. In addition, it is also pointed out by the appellants that the SPD guidance pre-dates current permitted development rights, which make provision for larger rear extensions. 8. Although the proposal would conflict with the Council’s SPD, an assessment must be made as to whether the proposal would be unacceptably harmful to residential amenity. With regard to the effect on the occupants of number 38, the extension would be set back from side boundary between the two properties by approximately 1m. This, together with the relatively low eaves height (2.46m) of the extension and existing boundary fencing and vegetation would mean that the effect on the outlook from the windows of number 38 would not be significant. 9. Turning to the effect on number 42, the extension would be constructed up to the boundary of that property. The closest windows on number 42 are part of a glazed conservatory. The existing outlook from the conservatory is already partially affected by boundary fencing and planting. Although the proposed Appeal Decision APP/N1920/D/18/3201197 3 extension would have some additional impact on the outlook from number 42 because of its positioning beyond the rear of the conservatory, I am not persuaded that the effect on the outlook from number 42 would be unacceptably harmful, because of it relatively low height. 10. Therefore, for the above reasons, I conclude on this issue that the appeal proposal would not have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupants of numbers 38 and 42. Character and Appearance 11. The Council considers that the proposed extension would be a visually incongruous addition to the property and that it would fail to harmonise with the scale, form and composition of the existing dwelling. The Council refers to a number of Development Plan policies in its decision notice. I consider the most relevant of these to be Policies SP1 and CS22 of the CS and Policy SADM30 of the SADMPP. These generally seek to ensure (amongst other things) that development is of high quality design and recognises and complements local character. In my opinion, these policies accord with the provisions of paragraphs 17 and 58 of the Framework, which also require development to be of high quality design; respond to local character; and to add to the overall quality of the area. In addition, the Council’s SPD advises that single storey rear extensions should be “secondary to the original house”. 12. The proposed extension would add significantly to the ground floor footprint of the dwelling. However, its single storey height and shallow roof pitch would result in it appearing subservient to the original property. Although the design of the extension displays different architectural characteristics when compared to the original dwelling, principally because of its roof design, I am not convinced that the extension would be unduly harmful. The appeal property is not in a conservation area and it has no special protection in planning terms. Furthermore, it would not be visible from Falconer Road and the occupants of properties at the rear would only have limited views because of the generous separation distances between. 13. The Council also expresses concern that the proposal would ‘wrap around’ the rear outrigger, which would fail to respond to local character. It points to the inset between the side of outriggers and side boundaries of properties as a feature on dwellings along Falconer Road. However, this space at the appeal property has already been infilled by a single storey lean-to extension, which would be replaced by part of the proposed extension. Consequently, I consider that the officer’s concerns are not justified. 14. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling. Conditions 15. The Council has suggested conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed. These have been considered in the light of the advice contained within the Planning Practice Guidance. 16. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. Appeal Decision APP/N1920/D/18/3201197 4 17. To ensure a satisfactory appearance, a condition requiring the use of external materials to match the existing dwelling is also necessary. Conclusion 18. For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal should be allowed. Ian McHugh INSPECTOR