Single storey rear 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: 6 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L5810/D/18/3201789 32 Second Cross Road, Twickenham TW2 5RF  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 & Mrs Lowe against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames.  The application Ref 18/0781/HOT, dated 7 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 27 April 2018.  The development proposed is single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Reasons 3. No 32 is a two storey mid-terrace dwelling in a residential road of similar properties. 4. The proposal involves replacing the existing single storey rear extension with a larger extension, which would include a pitched roof with a central lantern light. Part of the existing roof terrace would be retained with a surrounding timber screen. Despite the integration of two former properties into the single appeal property, No 32 is of modest proportions in terms of its depth and height. The existing rear extension respects these proportions as it is of limited height with a flat roof and extends some five metres from the main dwelling. 5. In contrast, the proposed extension would be a substantively larger structure of greater height due to the pitched roof and lantern light and would add some three metres more depth than the existing single storey element. While the appellant contends that this depth accords with the guidelines in the Council’s House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document, this also indicates that individual circumstances need to be taken into account, including the effects of the height as well as the depth of an extension. Appeal Decision APP/L5810/D/18/3201789 2 6. In this case, the extension’s proportions would add considerable bulk and mass to the rear of the host dwelling. Moreover, the combined roof design and tall timber screen to the terrace would not integrate visually with the simple design and appearance of the host dwelling. They would add visual complexity and be incongruous features viewed from the surrounding gardens. Overall, therefore, the combined scale and design of the proposed extension would result in material harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. 7. I accept that there are examples of single storey extensions at nearby properties, some of which such as that at No 36, extend further back than the appeal proposal would. However, these other examples are not of the same height as the proposed extension and have more conventional roof forms, thereby reducing their bulk. 8. Similarly, the extension at No 30 has a flat roof and is not as deep as the appeal proposal. Therefore, while I have had regard to these other examples of extensions, for the reasons given they are not directly comparable and do not set a precedent for the form of extension proposed here. I acknowledge that the extension’s design is intended to minimise energy use, but this is insufficient reason to overcome the harm that has been found. 9. Therefore, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed extension would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to the following development plan policies: CP7 of the Core Strategy, which requires all new development to maintain and improve the local environment; and 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. Other Matters 10. The Council raises concerns about the effects of the extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 30, adjoining the appeal property. The combined additional depth and height, with the pitched roof and lantern, directly next to the boundary would be readily visible in close proximity from the ground floor rear windows and garden of No 30. From these viewpoints the extension would appear as an overbearing and dominant feature. 11. No 30 has a relatively narrow garden with a tall brick wall on its other boundary. Consequently, the combined effect of the existing wall and proposed extension would be oppressive, creating a ‘tunnelling’ effect in views from the rear of the property and a harmful sense of enclosure in the garden close to the house. I find, therefore, that this harm would add to that found with regard to the main issue and there would be conflict in this respect with Policy DM DC5 of the Development Management Plan referred to by the Council, which concerns the effect of development on the amenity of neighbouring properties. 12. For the reasons given above it is concluded that the appeal should not succeed. J Bell-Williamson INSPECTOR