6m rear extension prior approval application

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 February 2019 by Jonathon Parsons MSc BSc DipTP (Cert Urb) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/B5480/D/18/3208160 2 Stanley Close, Romford RM2 5DP • 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 (GPDO) 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr S Vaja against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Havering. • The application Ref Y0218.18, dated 18 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 25 July 2018. • The development proposed is a 6m rear extension prior approval application. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The provisions of the GPDO, under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Part A.4(7) 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 on the same basis. Reasons 3. The existing dwelling is semi-detached and has a rear patio, beyond which there is a garden at a lower level. The neighbouring semi-detached dwelling at 1 Stanley Close also has a similar sited patio and lower level garden beyond. It has rear ground floor windows and a door facing onto its patio. 4. The proposal would result in a 6 metres deep extension along the common boundary with the neighbouring property. The extension would comprise a flat roof where it would abut the host dwelling, and a downward sloping mono-pitch where it faces the garden of the host dwelling. As a result, its height would vary between approximately 3.9 and 2.4 metres. 5. There is a common boundary fence which would screen the bottom section of the ground floor extension. However, there would still be a substantial area of flank extension wall above this by reason of its height and depth. As a result, it’s bulk and mass would dominate the neighbour’s outlook from their patio, garden and the ground floor glazed openings. It would also significantly reduce sunlight during the morning given its orientation, height and depth. In respect Appeal Decision APP/B5480/D/18/3208160 2 of the garden just beyond the patio, this adverse effect would be particularly marked given its lower level. By reason of the depth of the rearward projection and the identified harm, there would be conflict with the guidance of the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2011. In this respect, the depth of extension should be greater than 4 metres and would extend beyond an angle of 45 degrees taken from a 4 metres dimension taken on the common property boundary (paragraph 5.3). 6. In term of daylight, there would be opportunities for such a type of light to come from directions other than that of the extension and the existing semi- detached properties. Nevertheless, there would be harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property which would be significant by reason of the loss of outlook and sunlight. For the above reasons, having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Jonathon Parsons INSPECTOR