Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 November 2018 by Felicity Thompson BA(Hons) MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3 December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U5930/D/18/3206706 26 Ellingham Road, E15 2AU  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.  The appeal is made by Mr Y Chen against the decision of the London Borough of Waltham Forest.  The application Ref 181002, dated 13 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 26 April 2018.  The development proposed is single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. Development is not permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A.1. (J)(iii) of the above Order if the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. The Council considers that the extension would extend beyond a side wall of the original dwellinghouse and refused the application on this basis. 3. Under Part 1 Class A.4(7) where any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects to the proposed development, the prior approval of the local planning authority is required as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. Notwithstanding that the Council determined that the development is not permitted by the Order, they went on to assess the effect of the proposed development on the amenity of adjoining premises, following receipt of an objection from the occupiers of 28 Ellingham Road. Main Issues 4. On the basis of the above and the submitted evidence, I consider that the main issues are:  whether the proposed extension is permitted under the above Order; and  if so, the effect of the proposed extension on the amenity of adjoining premises with particular regard to outlook and light. Appeal Decision APP/U5930/D/18/3206706 2 Reasons Permitted Development 5. The proposed development involves the demolition of an existing single storey extension. Even though the existing extension would be demolished as part of the proposed development, the restrictions in A.1.(j) still apply. The limitations to permitted development are based on the original dwellinghouse and apply even if part of the original is removed. 6. The appellant states that the extension does not form part of the original dwellinghouse and that it consists of a shed that was detached from the house when it was constructed and was later connected to the house with an infill extension. At my site visit I observed that the single storey extension is of an unusual form and design. It seems to me, on the balance of probabilities, and in the absence of any contradictory evidence, that the infill extension was a later addition and therefore the resulting extension, including the shed, does not form part of the original dwellinghouse for the purposes of permitted development. 7. In this respect the proposed extension would comply with the limitations of A.1. (J)(iii) and this would not trigger the requirement for prior approval. Amenity 8. It is evident from the Council’s delegated report that a letter of objection was received from the occupiers of the adjoining no.28. Therefore, paragraph A.4(7) is triggered and I am required to assess the proposed development on the basis of its impact on the amenity of all ‘adjoining’ premises and land. In this respect regard must be had to the representation, and also to the impact on all adjoining occupiers, even those who did not make representations. 9. No.26 is a mid-terrace property and the proposed extension would be sited in very close proximity to and run along the shared boundaries with numbers 24 and 28 for a relatively substantial distance. In respect of no.24, because of the height, depth and very close proximity to what appears to be a habitable room window, I find that the proposed extension would have an overbearing effect upon the outlook from the house and the garden creating a sense of enclosure. The sense of enclosure would be exacerbated because of the relatively tall extension to the rear of 22 Ellingham Road, also on the shared boundary with no.24. I consider the effect is such that the amenity of the occupiers of no.24 would be unacceptably harmed and the amenity value of the garden, in particular, would be significantly compromised. 10. I therefore conclude that the proposed extension would not accord with the amenity protection aims of Policy DM32 of the London Borough of Waltham Forest Development Management Policies Local Plan (Local Plan) which requires development to ensure that outlook is maintained for neighbours in their homes and gardens. 11. The proposed extension would be located to the north of no.24 and on this basis I consider there would be no material harm in respect of loss of light or shading. 12. The proposed development would include the removal of the existing single storey extension which is sited on the shared boundary with no.28. At my site Appeal Decision APP/U5930/D/18/3206706 3 visit I also noted that there is a relatively large detached outbuilding which is sited on the shared boundary with no.28. Whilst the proposed extension is deeper and marginally greater in height than the existing extension, it seems to me that the proposal would not result in a material increase in the extent of built development on the shared boundary with no.28. Therefore, I consider that there would be no material harm caused to the amenity of the occupiers of no.28 in respect of outlook, loss of light or shading and no conflict with Policy DM32 of the Local Plan. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed. Felicity Thompson INSPECTOR