Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 January 2019 by M Brooker DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/F5540/D/18/3206796 108 Ash Grove, Hounslow TW5 9DS  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 Baldev Singh Gill against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow.  The application Ref 00048/108/PA2, dated 12 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 24 April 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and prior approval is deemed to be granted under the provisions of 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) for the construction of a single storey rear extension at 108 Ash Grove, Hounslow TW5 9DS in accordance with the application 00048/108/PA2 made on 12 March 2018, and the details submitted with it pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4(2) Procedural Matters 2. The provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), under Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Part A(12) 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. My determination of this appeal has been made in the same manner. 3. Whilst I acknowledge that concerns have been raised regarding the potential for damage to occur to the neighbouring property in the course of construction this is not a matter that I am able to take into account in my decision because it is a private matter between the relevant parties. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a two storey dwelling forming part of a short terrace. A narrow walkway provides access to the rear of the appeal property and 110 Ash Grove. 5. I observed at my site visit that the adjoining properties both have extensions that project approximately 3 metres from the rear elevation with large rear Appeal Decision APP/F5540/X/18/3206796 2 facing windows serving habitable rooms. The proposed extension would project approximately 1.5m beyond these extensions. 6. The development would be limited to a single storey in height and would have a very shallow sloping roof thus limiting any loss of light or sense of it appearing overbearing to the occupiers of adjoining properties. Furthermore, the extension would be set off the boundary with the adjoining properties, if only marginally with respect to 106 Ash Grove reducing the impact of the development on the occupiers of those properties. 7. I noted at my site visit that the rear gardens of the appeal and adjoining properties enjoy a relatively open aspect and as a result of the orientation of the dwellings any overshadowing of neighbouring property’s windows and rear garden areas as a result of the proposed development would be minimal and as such would not be harmful. 8. I am not therefore persuaded that the impacts of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining properties would be harmful and I therefore find that the specific circumstances of this case justify the development proceeding. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Mark Brooker INSPECTOR