Double storey side, single storey rear and part first floor rear extension with internal alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 August 2018 by J Bell-Williamson MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B5480/D/18/3203404 20 Laburnham Gardens, Upminster RM14 1HU  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 J Hollowbread against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering.  The application Ref P1565.17, dated 14 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 27 March 2018.  The development proposed is double storey side, single storey rear and part first floor rear extension with internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for double storey side, single storey rear and part first floor rear extension with internal alterations at 20 Laburnham Gardens, Upminster RM14 1HU. The permission is granted in accordance with the terms of the application Ref P1565.17, dated 14 September 2017, subject to the conditions included in the Schedule at Annex A. Preliminary Matter 2. A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 24 July 2018. The content of the revised Framework has been considered but in light of the facts in this case it does not alter my conclusion. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed rear extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 22 Laburnham Gardens, with regard to outlook. Reasons 4. No 20 is a two storey semi-detached dwelling in a residential road of similar property types and semi-detached bungalows. 5. The proposal involves a side extension above the existing single storey garage. This would project to the rear beyond the existing building line, to form a single Appeal Decision APP/B5480/D/18/3203404 2 storey extension across the property’s full width, with a set-back two storey extension covering around half the width of the original dwelling. 6. No 22 is the nearest neighbouring property to the two storey element and as both this and the appeal property currently have a consistent rear building line, there is the potential for the outlook for this property to be affected. This neighbouring property is a bungalow but has two large dormer roof extensions. The nearest of these to No 20 includes obscured glass and, therefore, the outlook from this window would not be directly affected by the extension. 7. The extension would not project to a significant degree beyond the existing rear building line and would be subordinate in height to the original roof of the host dwelling. Moreover, it would be set away from the boundary and the properties enjoy relatively large rear gardens with a highly open aspect to the rear due to the size of gardens and good separation from properties opposite. 8. In these circumstances, the main, most direct outlook from the nearest ground floor windows and others belonging to No 22 would be towards the open rear garden. Furthermore, the limited depth of the two storey element would not harmfully effect the enjoyment of the large rear garden. 9. Therefore, taking these findings as a whole, I conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 22 Laburnham Gardens, with regard to outlook. Accordingly, there is no conflict with Policy DC61 of the Council’s Core Strategy and Development Control Policies document, which concerns urban design including the effects of development on surrounding amenity. This policy is consistent with the Framework. Conditions 10. Of the Council’s suggested conditions I have imposed the standard time condition and, to ensure the proper implementation of the proposal, one requiring development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. I agree also that a condition requiring the external materials used to match those of the existing building is needed in the interests of the appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. 11. Given the potential for overlooking the neighbouring property from windows in the side elevation of the extended dwelling, I agree that conditions controlling any further windows and requiring obscured glass and limited opening in those proposed, are necessary as suggested by the Council. 12. For the reasons given above it is concluded that the appeal should succeed. J Bell-Williamson INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/B5480/D/18/3203404 3 Annex A Schedule – conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: SP1786-2 Revision A (proposed plans) and SP1786-3 (site and location plans). 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, no window or other opening (other than those shown on the approved plan SP1786-2 Revision A) shall be formed in the flank wall of the extension hereby permitted, unless specific permission under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 has first been sought and obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority. 5) The ground and first floor windows as shown on the floor plans and side elevation on the approved plan SP1786-2 Revision A shall be glazed with obscured glass not less than level 4 on the standard scale of obscurity and shall be permanently fixed shut, with the exception of any top hung fanlight. The windows shall be permanently maintained as such.