For a single storey rear extension with internal alterations to ground floor and first floor side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 December 2018 by M Seaton DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 19 February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/B5480/D/18/3204739 4 Rockchase Gardens, Hornchurch, RM11 3NH • 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 Ashok Matthew against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref P1988.17, dated 7 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 4 April 2018. • The development is for a single storey rear extension with internal alterations to ground floor and first floor side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension with internal alterations to ground floor and first floor side extension at 4 Rockchase Gardens, Hornchurch, RM11 3NH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. P1988.17, dated 7 February 2018, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing Nos. MON-0118-040 Rev A, MON- 0118-041 Rev A, MON-0118-042 Rev A, MON-0118-043 Rev A and MON- 0118-044 Rev A. 2. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3. 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 submitted and approved plan,) shall be formed in the flank walls of the development 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. 4. The roof area of the existing and proposed single storey rear extension shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area without the grant of further specific permission from the Local Planning Authority. 5. The first floor flank window to the bathroom extension as shown on MON- 0118-043 Rev A and MON-0118-044 Rev A shall be permanently glazed with obscure glass not less than level 4 on the standard scale of obscurity, and shall thereafter be maintained and permanently fixed shut. Appeal Decision APP/B5480/D/18/3204739 2 Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr Ashok Matthew against the Council of the London Borough of Havering. This application will be the subject of a separate Decision. Main Issues 3. The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the street scene and the area; and, • Whether the development would safeguard the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of No. 2 Rockchase Gardens, having regard to outlook and privacy. Reasons 4. The appeal site is occupied by a two-storey detached dwelling and is set within a cul-de-sac characterised by dwellings of complementary but varied designs, and comparable size. The dwelling is set back from the road by a generous distance, and appears staggered within the street scene in comparison to the neighbouring properties at No. 2 Rockchase Gardens which is set further forward, and No. 6 Rockchase Gardens which is set further back than the appeal property. 5. The Council has not expressed any concerns over the design or impact on living conditions of the single-storey rear extension, which had at the time of my visit been completed and was occupied and in use by the appellant. Whilst I note that the Council appears to have misidentified the element of works upon which its concerns were focussed in the reason for refusal, it is clearly evident from the appeal submissions that they related specifically to the impact of the first- floor side extension, which I noted had been partially completed at the time of my visit. Character and appearance 6. On the basis of my observations, there is a prevailing sense of spaciousness within the street scene provided largely by the set back of properties from the road frontage, but also by virtue of the maintenance of reasonable gaps between the flank elevations of dwellings. In this latter respect, I have had regard to the guidance to which I have been referred by the Council within the Emerson Park Policy Area Supplementary Planning Document 2009 (the Emerson Park SPD) and the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2011 (the Residential SPD), related to the maintenance of gaps between neighbouring properties. 7. The first floor side extension would maintain a 1 metre gap from the boundary with the neighbouring property, but would intrude upon the 2 metre gap at first floor level advised in the Emerson Park guidance as necessary to maintain spacing between dwellings. However, in this instance the specific circumstances would mitigate against the conclusion that the development unacceptably closes the existing gap. I have noted that it is the pitched roof single storey garage at No. 2 Rockchase Gardens which is set closest to the boundary with the appeal site. I find that the more limited scale of this element of the Appeal Decision APP/B5480/D/18/3204739 3 neighbouring property compared to the 2-storey scale of the main dwelling would, when taken in combination with the staggered relationship between the neighbouring properties, be sufficient to ensure that the existing sense of spaciousness is not intruded upon with any significance by the development. 8. I accept that the extension is visible from the street, but I do not consider that the design and appearance of the extension is inappropriate in the context of the host dwelling, would appear cramped, or have a detrimental impact on the street scene. 9. As a consequence, I am satisfied that the development would not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the street scene or the area. Whilst I have accepted that there would be some limited conflict with the guidance set out within the Emerson Park SPD and Residential SPD, there would not be conflict with Policies DC61 and DC69 of the Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document 2008 (the Core Strategy). These policies seek to ensure that development maintains, enhances or improves the character and appearance of the local area by complementing the character of an area and integrating with surrounding land and buildings, including within the Emerson Park Policy Area. Living conditions 10. I have carefully considered the relationship between the first floor extension and the neighbouring property. I accept that the extension has a certain degree of impact on the outlook from the rear and garden of the neighbouring property at No. 2 Rockchase Gardens. However, as a consequence of the neighbouring first and ground floor rear windows being set a comfortable distance away from the boundary and not directly facing towards the extension, I am satisfied that the impact is largely confined to the periphery of the outlook from the rear windows. I accept that the extension would inevitably be visible from the neighbouring rear garden itself, but as a consequence of its position on the appeal property, it would be viewed in the context of the existing dwelling and its roofscape, and would not therefore have an unacceptable visual impact. 11. Turning to issues of privacy, I have had regard to the concerns over the extension presenting an unacceptable perception of being overlooked, and therefore a loss of privacy. However, I do not accept this to be the case as I note that an existing obscurely glazed window serving a bathroom was previously in situ at first floor level on the flank elevation facing No. 2 Rockchase Gardens. Whilst the obscurely glazed bathroom window in the extension would be closer to the common boundary than before, I am satisfied that the circumstances would not alter significantly or to an unacceptable degree. 12. With regards the window to the ground floor utility room in the flank elevation, I note that this is also shown on the plans as being obscurely glazed. However, whilst I consider this to be a proportionate means of addressing any potential for overlooking, I note that the window only serves a very small non-habitable room in any event. 13. On the basis of my observations of the extension, the appeal site and neighbouring property, I am satisfied that the development adequately safeguards the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of No. 2 Appeal Decision APP/B5480/D/18/3204739 4 Rockchase Gardens, having regard to outlook and privacy. I have not therefore found there to be conflict with policies DC61 and DC69 of the Core Strategy, or the guidance within the Residential SPD. These policies and guidance seek to protect the amenity of existing occupiers and ensure that development does not result in an unacceptable impact on outlook, overlooking or loss of privacy. Other Matters 14. I have had regard to the suggestion from neighbouring occupiers that the development would be likely to set a precedent for similar schemes in the future. However, a scheme genuinely comparable with this one would be likely to be acceptable and I envisage that the Council would successfully be able to resist any development which could be shown to be likely to cause demonstrable harm. Conditions 15. The Council has suggested a condition in respect of timeliness for the commencement of development, although given the clear evidence of a commencement on site I am satisfied that the imposition would not be justified. 16. In addition to the identification of plans, the Council has suggested a condition related to the use of matching materials for all external surfaces of the development. I am satisfied that such a condition would be necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area. Conditions related to the removal of permitted development rights for windows in the flank elevation of the development, preclusion of use of the rear extension roof as a balcony, and securing the proposed bathroom window as obscurely glazed and fixed, would all be reasonable and necessary in the interest of safeguarding the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Conclusions 17. For the reasons given above and subject to the conditions listed, the appeal should be allowed. M Seaton INSPECTOR