First floor rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 November 2018 by D Cramond BSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/F5540/D/18/3209388 35 Jersey Road, Hounslow, London, TW3 4BQ  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 R Karia against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow.  The application Ref 00647/35/P10, dated 10 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 20 June 2018.  The development proposed is a first floor rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. I am dealing with a proposal on the adjoining property, No 33 Jersey Road, under Ref APP/F5540/D/18/3209385 which abuts this appeal scheme. I shall refer to this matter in greater detail below. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on, firstly, the character and appearance of the host property and the locality and, secondly, living conditions for neighbours. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two-storey, hipped-roof, semi-detached home in a cul de sac of six similar dwellings within a wider area of mixed uses and building forms. The building has a sizeable two storey rear extension with a hipped pitched main roof running to the principal ridge. Overall however it is a property of simple design and is visually at ease in this setting and with its neighbour. The proposal is for development which would add a further bedroom to the side of the existing rear extension, housed under a flat roof, and running alongside the shared rear side boundary with its semi-detached dwelling. The projection outwards would be about 5 metres, a little beyond the existing rear extension, and the width across the new works between 2 and 3 metres. 5. The Appellant is quite clear that if this scheme were to be permitted it would be developed in parallel with the proposal referenced in paragraph 2 above which also includes flat roofed first floor extension work. The different Appellant at Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/18/3209388 2 No 33 concurs. The intent is said to be to co-operate and it is suggested that a planning condition be utilised to ensure this. However, even where the extensions are joint ventures, if neither Appellant has any control over the neighbour’s land a condition requiring the completion of both extensions, or one which prevents occupation until both are completed, is not a reasonably enforceable condition and hence I would not follow this route. For enforceable joint working a binding legal undertaking would need to be completed whereby both owners agree to carry out the development as one scheme. This would bind the land and any successors in title. I have no such undertaking. I shall therefore determine this case on its own individual merits and in isolation just as I shall for the scheme at No 33 and which in any event needs its qualities to be carefully considered. Character and appearance 6. As noted above the appeal property has a sizeable extension to its rear and this proposal would adjoin that leading to two storey extensions of considerable scale and varied form across the whole of the rear elevation of the home. The cumulative effect would be an unduly cumbersome one with extension work not displaying suitable subordination to the original property and being of poor design. I do appreciate that there is variety locally including some regrettable buildings, that matching materials would be used, and also that views of any new development would be very restricted. Furthermore I would agree that guidance on extensions is just that, guidance, and should at times be treated flexibly. Nevertheless it is clear that national and local planning policy strives for good quality well designed buildings and I simply could not condone this ungainly development. 7. Local Plan (LP) Policies CC1, CC2, SC7 and the objectives of the Residential Extensions Guidelines (REG) are all relevant in that taken together and amongst other matters they seek to secure development which would display good quality design, complement and be subordinate to the original building, reflect local distinctiveness, and not have excessive massing. I conclude that the proposal would conflict with these policies and the Guidelines. 8. I would add that with or without ‘tying’ this scheme to any works on the adjoining property I would reach the same over-riding conclusion on this issue. Living conditions 9. The proposal would result in a two storey wall projecting out from the appeal property some 5 metres and sited virtually on the shared boundary to the rear gardens. It would lie close to an upper floor window in No 33. The scheme would be positioned to the west side of this property. It is clear to me that this stark mass of development in this position and proximity would be seriously harmful to the outlook from the neighbouring property and reduce sunlight in the latter part of the day. The effect in the relevant room would be one of undue ‘blinkering’ and being hemmed-in and this would be adverse and unacceptable in my opinion. There would be impact upon the neighbouring garden as well however concerns over sunlight to and outlook from this would dissipate if a ground floor ‘permitted development’ extension which appeared to have commenced at the time of visit was to be completed. 10. LP Policies CC1, CC2, SC7 and the objectives of the REG also seek to secure development which would not be unduly harmful to residential amenity. Given Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/18/3209388 3 the above I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the policy aim of protecting living conditions. 11. I would add that had this appeal scheme been ‘tied’ to an adjoining comparable scheme as referenced above, and were I minded to allow an appeal for that neighbouring scheme, the question of an adverse impact upon living conditions would not have been a reason for dismissing this appeal. This is because window positions and garden layout would have unequivocally been altered in parallel. Other matters 12. I have carefully considered all the points raised by the Appellant but these matters do not outweigh the concerns which I have in relation to the main issue identified above. 13. I confirm that policies in the National Planning Policy Framework have been considered; the Council’s policies which I cite mirror relevant objectives within the Framework. Overall conclusion 14. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would have unacceptable adverse effects on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality as well as on living conditions for neighbours. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. D Cramond INSPECTOR