Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 December 2018 by Graeme Robbie BA(Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R5510/W/18/3206520 63 Colbrook Avenue, Hayes UB3 1TQ  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 Jasdeep Singh against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon.  The application Ref 41741/APP/2018/1347, dated 6 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 17 May 2018.  The development is described as ‘single storey rear extension’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and, for the reasons given below, approval is granted under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph A.4 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) for the erection of a single storey rear extension which would extend beyond the rear wall of the original house by 4 metres, for which the maximum height would be 3.4 metres and for which the height of the eaves would be 3 metres at 63 Colbrook Avenue, Hayes UB3 1TQ in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 41741/APP/2018/1347, dated 6 April 2018, and the details submitted with it, including the plan titled ‘Ground Floor’, pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A and paragraph A.4 of the GPDO. Procedural Matters 2. The original application form was undated and so I have adopted as the ‘date of the application’ the date given on the appellant’s appeal form and the Council’s decision notice. That date is set out in my banner heading, above. I have also adopted the more detailed description set out on the Council’s decision notice, and subsequently adopted by the appellant on the appeal questionnaire, in my decision as it more accurately and fully describes the proposal for the purposes of the GPDO. Background and Main Issues 3. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO allows for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of the original dwelling house. Until 30 May 2019, paragraph A.1.(g) of that Class makes provision for single storey rear extensions up to 6 metres in length beyond the rear wall of the original dwelling house and 4m in height for properties other than detached dwellings. Appeal Decision APP/R5510/W/18/3206520 2 Development will not be permitted by Class A where it exceeds the limitations will set out therein, or the relevant limitations set out elsewhere within Class A. 4. Where development that is permitted by Class A exceeds the limits set out in paragraph A.1.(f) but is allowed by paragraph A.1.(g), paragraph A.4. sets out the process by which notification of the proposal has to be made to the local planning authority (LPA). Owners or occupiers adjoining the proposed development are required to be served notice1 of the proposal by the LPA and, where any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects, the prior approval of the LPA is required2 as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. 5. Although, the Council refused prior approval for the proposed single storey rear extension they have expressly not determined whether or not the proposal would comply with the restrictions, limitations and conditions imposed by Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. It is therefore incumbent upon me to consider first, whether or not the proposal would exceed those restrictions, limitations or conditions. Having done so, and if necessary, I am required 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. 6. Having regard to the above, the main issues are whether the proposal benefits from the planning permission (permitted development) granted by Part 1, Class A of the GPDO and, if so, the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of 61 Colbrook Avenue in respect of light and outlook. Class A 7. The proposed single storey extension would be located on the rear elevation of the host dwelling, a semi-detached property with a generously long rear garden. The extension would project 4 metres in depth from the rear elevation and measure 3 metres in height to eaves level and 3.4 metres to its highest point. The extension would extend across the entire width of the dwelling’s rear elevation and so would be located within 2 metres of the adjoining half of the semi-detached property (No. 61). 8. From all that I have read and seen, I am satisfied that the proposal would not exceed the restrictions, limitations or conditions set out at paragraphs A.1.(a) to (e) and (h) to (k) of Class A.1. Although it would exceed the limitation set out at paragraph A.1.(f)(i) it would not exceed those set out at paragraph A.1.(g)(i) or (ii). Living conditions 9. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling paired with No. 61. The rear extension would extend across the entire width of No. 63’s rear elevation, up to the boundary with No. 61, where it would project to a depth of 4 metres and with height varying from 3 metres (eaves level) to 3.4 metres at its highest point. 10. The adjoining property has not been extended at the rear, although a detached garage is located a short distance to the rear of the property. Like the appeal property, it has a two storey bay with chamfered corners at the rear that is 1 Paragraph A.4.(5) 2 Paragraph A.4.(7) Appeal Decision APP/R5510/W/18/3206520 3 positioned close to the proposed extension. I accept that the proposal, at 4 metres in depth, would exceed the 3.6 metre guideline for single storey rear extensions as set out in the Hillingdon Design and Accessibility Statement (HDAS) Supplementary Planning Document. However, it would do so by only a small amount, whilst the heights at eaves level and the highest point would comply with the relevant HDAS guidelines. 11. More compelling, however, is that the outlook to the rear of No. 61 is an open, south facing one across rear gardens of considerable length. The gardens of the properties beyond on Wentworth Crescent are equally generous and the outlook to the rear is pleasantly expansive. Being south facing, the rear of No. 61 would receive a good level of daylight and sunlight, whilst the chamfered bay window would capture available light. I accept that, being located broadly due west of the rear of No. 61, there may be certain times of the day and at certain times of the year that the proposed extension would result in some overshadowing of the rear of No. 61. However, I do not consider that that would amount to the oppressive or overbearing impact presence that the Council fear, or would result in an unacceptable loss of light or outlook to the rear of No. 61. 12. I do not therefore agree that such an extension in this location would be especially oppressive or overbearing or seriously impair the daylight or sunlight that neighbouring residents might reasonably expect to enjoy here. As I have found that the scheme would satisfy the relevant limitations imposed by the Order, I consider that the impact of the proposal would not seriously impinge on the amenity enjoyed by any adjoining owner or occupier, as informed by the provisions of policies BE19, BE20 and BE21 of the Hillingdon Local Plan Part Two – Saved UDP policies. Hence, prior approval is deemed to be granted and the proposal would constitute permitted development. Other Matters 13. The objection to the proposal was on the grounds that the extension would restrict vehicular access to the detached garage located in the rear garden of the appeal property. That may well be the case, but it would not preclude access to the rear in totality, whilst I saw that there was sufficient space at the front of the property for the parking of two vehicles clear of the access between Nos. 63 and 65. I note that the Council were satisfied that the proposal would be in compliance with policy AM14 of the Hillingdon Local Plan – saved UDP Policies, and that the application was not refused on these grounds. Nor am I persuaded that the proposal would result in harm in this respect. Conclusion 14. For the reasons set out above, and having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. This development, permitted under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, is subject to the conditions and requirements set out in paragraphs A.4(13), A.4(14) and A.4(15) of the Order, which specify that the development shall be completed on or before 30 May 2019, that the developer shall notify the Local Planning Authority in writing of the completion of the development as soon as reasonably practicable after completion, and such notification shall include the name of the developer, the address or location of the development, and the date of completion. The standard conditions set out in the GPDO at Schedule 2, Part 1, A.3 also apply which in this case require that the materials to be used in any exterior work of Appeal Decision APP/R5510/W/18/3206520 4 the extension must be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwelling. Graeme Robbie INSPECTOR