Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 July 2018 by Jillian Rann BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10th August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M5450/D/18/3201610 23 Rocklands Drive, Stanmore HA7 2JD  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).  The appeal is made by Mr D Panchani against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Harrow.  The application Ref P/0652/18/PRIOR, dated 16 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 28 March 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO) require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development solely on the basis of its impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. I shall determine the appeal on the same basis. 3. In reaching my decision I have regard to the revised National Planning Policy Framework, 24 July 2018 (the revised Framework). With regard to the particular issues under consideration in this case, I do not find that the revised Framework raises any new relevant matters relative to the terms of the previous version, which both parties have had the opportunity to comment on. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of 21 Rocklands Drive with regard to outlook and light. Reasons 5. The proposed extension would be located very close to the boundary with No 21, and to the ground floor patio doors to the rear of this adjoining property. It would project further than the appeal property’s existing conservatory, and for a significant depth alongside this boundary, adjacent to a small patio area to the rear of No 21. I observed that the section of the Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/18/3201610 2 boundary fence between the proposed extension and No 21 is quite high at present. However, the proposed extension would be materially higher than this existing fence, and than the appeal property’s existing conservatory. Its effect on the outlook from No 21 would therefore be significantly greater than that of these existing structures. 6. As a result of its significant height and depth, and its proximity to the boundary, the proposed extension would appear as an unduly dominant and overbearing feature when viewed from the patio doors and the patio area to the rear of No 21. The proposal would therefore have a significant adverse effect on the outlook from these areas. 7. The ground floor kitchen in the rear of No 21 is set some distance from the boundary with the appeal site and, as I observed during my visit, is also served by a further window in its side elevation. I therefore consider that this neighbouring kitchen would maintain a satisfactory outlook overall. 8. As the proposed extension would be located roughly to the east/north east of No 21, and would be single storey, it would not result in a significant further reduction in daylight or sunlight to No 21’s rear windows or garden area over and above that which arises from the existing two storey appeal building. 9. 25 Rocklands Drive has an existing single storey extension which projects some distance to the rear. Given this, and the separation distance between the properties, the proposed extension would not have significant implications for the living conditions of the occupants of No 25 with regard to outlook or light. 10. A sufficient separation distance would be maintained between the proposed extension and adjacent properties to the rear to avoid impact upon the amenity of their occupiers in all respects. 11. However, for the reasons given above, the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupants of No 21 with regard to outlook. It would therefore conflict with Policy DM 1 of the Harrow Council Development Management Policies Local Plan Document, and with the aims of the Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document. Amongst other things, these state that proposals that would be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers will be resisted. Other Matters 12. In reaching my decision, I have taken into account the personal and family circumstances put to me by the appellant. However, these do not outweigh the significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupants that would arise as a result of the particular proposal before me. 13. I have been referred to other large rear extensions in the street. However, as I have no details of the properties or extensions referred to, I cannot be certain that they are directly comparable to the proposal before me with regard to their design, siting in relation to neighbouring properties, or the circumstances surrounding their construction. In any event, I have considered the proposal before me on its own planning merits. 14. I am aware that other objections have been raised to the appeal scheme. However, as I find the proposal unacceptable for reasons consistent with those Appeal Decision APP/M5450/D/18/3201610 3 given by the Council, these further matters do not alter the outcome of the appeal, and I have not considered these further. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Jillian Rann INSPECTOR