Rear ground floor extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 October 2018 by Ian McHugh Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U5360/D/18/3209222 127 Lordship Road, Hackney, London, N16 5HF  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 Yitzchok Reichman against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hackney.  The application Ref 2018/1919, dated 30 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 31 July 2018.  The development proposed is a rear ground floor extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a rear ground floor extension at 127 Lordship Road, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 2018/1919, dated 30 May 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing Nos – L.R.127.LP; L.R.127.PRO.01; L.R.127.PRO.02; and L.R.127.PRO.03. 3) The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance the existing building and on the terrace, of which it is a part Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two storey terraced dwelling, which is situated within a residential area. It is positioned to the rear and at the side of multi-storey flats. A small children’s play area abuts the site on one side. The property has a distinctive appearance because of its shallow mono-pitched roof. 4. The proposal is to remove a small conservatory at the rear of the dwelling, and replace with a significantly larger flat-roofed single storey extension that would provide a living room. The extension would project 6m from the original rear wall of the dwelling. It would be inset from the shared side boundary with the adjoining property but would project beyond the side wall of the appeal dwelling on the other side. Appeal Decision APP/U5360/D/18/3209222 2 5. The Council contends that the proposal would be an incompatible and obtrusive form of development because of its size, design and location. It states that the development would conflict with Policy 24 of the Core Strategy 2010; Policy DM1 of the Development Management Local Plan 2015; and Policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan 2016. These policies generally require (amongst other things) for new development to be of high quality design; to respect the visual integrity of buildings; and to complement and have regard to local character. In my opinion, these policies accord with paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (the Framework), which contains similar provisions. 6. The Council also refers to conflict with its Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Extensions and Alterations 2009. This states that extensions on terraced dwellings should be no more than 3m in depth and should not project beyond the side wall of the original house. 7. In terms of the overall size, extent of projection and position of the extension, I consider that there would be a conflict with the Development Plan and the SPD. In addition, there is no evidence of comparable extensions on the other dwellings within the terrace. However, a material consideration is that the appellant benefits from a Prior Approval, which sanctions a 6m deep single storey rear extension. The main difference between that and the appeal proposal is that the Prior Approval proposal would not project beyond the side wall of the original house. The appellant states that he would implement the Prior Approval proposal if the appeal is dismissed. I have no reason to doubt his intention. 8. In my opinion, the appeal development would not be materially different in size or appearance to the Prior Notification proposal. Whilst the latter would project beyond the original side wall of the existing house, the extent of the projection would not be significant. Furthermore, it would occupy a narrow area of garden that would have no functional use and would be difficult to maintain. For these reasons and because of the ‘fall-back position’, I find the appeal proposal to be acceptable. Conditions 9. The Council has suggested conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed. These have been considered in the light of the advice contained within the Planning Practice Guidance. 10. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 11. To ensure a satisfactory appearance, a condition requiring the use of external materials to match the existing dwelling is also necessary Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal should be allowed. Ian McHugh INSPECTOR