First floor front extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 September 2018 by R J Jackson BA MPhil DMS MRTPI MCMI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/K3605/D/18/3207072 29 Sarum Green, Weybridge KT13 9RX  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 & Mrs Errington against the decision of Elmbridge Borough Council.  The application Ref 2018/0673, dated 1 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 25 April 2018.  The development proposed is first floor front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. Since the appeal was lodged the Government has published the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). I consider that in respect of the issue in this appeal that there were no material changes that required me to revert back to the main parties. The reference below is to the revised version of the Framework. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 25 Pennington Drive in terms of light and outlook. Reasons 4. The appeal property is at one side at the end of a cul-de-sac, with the properties at the end of another cul-de-sac off another road, Pennington Drive, beyond. The appeal property is a two storey dwelling with a cat-slide roof on the front elevation on the northwestern side. This cat-slide roof has a flat roofed dormer in the middle at first floor level. 5. The proposal is to remove the cat-slide and create a gable front, set down from the ridge, with a single window at the same level as the existing window, but set further forward. To do this the side elevation facing the adjoining two storey dwelling, 25 Pennington Drive, would be built up to provide a consistent eaves with the existing first floor eaves. 6. The main rear elevation of 25 Pennington Drive is towards the appeal site facing in an approximately east-southeast direction. This elevation also has a single storey flat roofed extension with a conservatory style element on the Appeal Decision APP/K3605/D/18/3207072 2 northern end. On the ground floor looking towards the appeal property there are two windows and a set of patio doors; at first floor there are three windows although the central one appeared to be fitted with obscure glass. Outside there is a patio and a small greenhouse, and it appears that there is the potential for a canopy to be wound out over part of the patio. 7. The section of garden of 25 Pennington Drive facing the appeal site is quite short. The Council and appellants indicate that there is 9 m between the facing wall and the rear elevation of No 25, and this would include the passageway to the side of the appeal property and the boundary fence, so this section of the garden of No 25 is less than 9 m wide. 8. The proposal would create a large blank wall directly in front of the rear elevation of No 25, which would extend at first floor level significantly further across the aspect than the current situation. This would create an overbearing situation for anyone within both the dwelling and the garden resulting in a harmful loss of outlook and light. 9. The Council has referred to its Design and Character Supplementary Planning Document but has not specifically indicated how it considers that the proposal would be contrary to its terms. However, insofar as the proposal would not preserve the amenities of the occupiers of a neighbouring property (see paragraph 1.2 of the Design and Character Companion Guide: Home Extensions) it would be contrary to its terms. 10. As such the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of 25 Pennington Drive in terms of light and outlook. Therefore it would be contrary to Policy DM2 of the Elmbridge Borough Council Development Management Plan which requires development to protect the amenity of adjoining occupiers, being designed to offer an appropriate outlook and provide adequate daylight, and contrary to the Design and Character Supplementary Planning Document as set out above. It would also be contrary to paragraph 127 of the Framework which indicates that decisions should ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Other matter 11. The appellants have referred to two other appeal cases which they consider to be similar to this case. However, in both cases the main issue related to the effect on the character and appearance of the area which is different from that here. Cases such as this are normally very circumstance specific and I consider that, from I what I have read, that neither is in a similar situation to this current appeal. In any event, each case needs to be considered on its own individual merits. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. R J Jackson INSPECTOR