Single storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 November 2018 by Graham M Garnham BA BPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 23 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G5750/D/18/3210587 99 Stamford Road, East Ham, London, E6 1LP  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 Mrs Hussain against the decision of London Borough of Newham Council.  The application Ref 18/01699/HH, dated 11 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 7 August 2018.  The development proposed is single storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The Council refused planning permission because of what it saw as inaccuracies, misrepresentations and deficiencies in the description of the proposal, the extent of what was included in it and the quality of the drawings submitted. It saw these shortcomings as possibly prejudicing other potentially interested parties, and as preventing it from making a full and proper assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework. 3. The application form indicates that work started without planning permission on 7 May 2018, but had not been completed at the date of the application. The retrospective nature of the proposal does not affect my consideration of its planning merits. However, it was clear on site that far more works have been carried out than had been applied for, particularly above ground floor level. Externally at least, these works appear largely to have been completed. 4. The proposal as described on the application form is given in the summary above. The drawings are annotated to show the ground floor rear extension as being “proposed”, while other works are annotated “existing”. The Council says that some of this second category of works are unauthorised, and should have been included in the application. Notwithstanding the Council’s stance on this matter, it falls to me to determine the application on the basis of what has been applied for, which is explicitly the single storey side and rear extension. 5. However, even looking at the ground floor works at the rear in isolation, it is evident that the submitted drawings do not accurately depict what has been constructed. I observed three main differences (all as alleged by the Council): the roof as built is pitched, while it is shown flat on the drawings; the size and Appeal Decision APP/G5750/D/18/3210587 2 arrangement of the rear door and window openings differ significantly from the elevation drawing; and the internal layout of the extension is not as shown on the proposed ground floor drawing. 6. The appellant has submitted a new set of plans with her Grounds of Appeal, stating “following this appeal with correct/more plans, the application should be lawful”. I read this as an acknowledgement that the original plans are not entirely “correct”, a view corroborated by several changes shown on the new set of drawings. Given the nature of the appeal process, these drawings have not been the subject of formal consideration by the Council. They have also not been subjected to notification to neighbours, who might be interested in their contents. In addition, as a matter of correct procedure, I am obliged to consider the appeal using the same drawings that were before the Council when it made its decision. As a result, while I have taken note of these new drawings, I cannot base my decision on them. 7. The Grounds of Appeal state further that the appeal is under “Ground (a) That planning permission should be granted for what is alleged in the application....[and] …. the work carried out should have planning approval”. The new plans show “proposed” works at first and second floor levels as well as on the ground floor. It seems that the appellant is seeking approval for all that has been done. However, despite this and for the reason given above, the proposal before me is that as submitted originally, for the single storey side and rear extension. 8. The appellant has also contested the way the Council is said to have applied various paragraphs in the Framework; several policies in the London Plan (2016), the Newham Local Plan: Core Strategy (2012) and the Newham Local Plan: Detailed Sites and Policies Development Plan Document (2016); and in some emerging plans. In fact, the Council cites no specific Framework provisions or development plan policies in its Decision Notice and relies on none in the officer report. The Grounds of Appeal appears to be directed, at least in part, to a document I have not seen, and which is not part of the evidence relating to this appeal. 9. Finally, the appellant has made several serious allegations about the way the Council has handled her planning application. The Council has had the opportunity to refute these in part. I consider that they relate primarily to matters of procedure, and hence they are beyond my remit, which is confined to the planning merits of the proposal before me Main Issue 10. In the light of all the foregoing, I consider that the main issue is whether I have clear and sufficient evidence before me to warrant the granting of planning permission. Reasons 11. I have three main areas of concern. Firstly, the drawings submitted with the proposal have been acknowledged to contain matters that need correction, if they are accurately to reflect the work carried out. Without drawings submitted in a timely manner and accurately showing what the appellant seeks, I have little confidence that the necessary planning condition relating to approved plans would be precise, enforceable or otherwise reasonable. A Appeal Decision APP/G5750/D/18/3210587 3 proper condition relating to approved plans is needed if planning permission is to be given, in the interests of certainty. 12. Secondly, whilst the appellant has addressed some of the substantive planning issues surrounding her proposal, in her Grounds of Appeal, the Council has not assessed these, for the reasons given. It is not my place to consider possible effects on character and appearance or living conditions, other than in response to the evidence before me. Hence I am unable to do full justice to these matters, which may have important implications for neighbours’ living conditions or for distinctive features of local character and appearance, for example. 13. Thirdly, and arising from the previous paragraphs, I am unable to make a balanced assessment of whether the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and, if relevant, national planning policy in the Framework. Applications need to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 14. Consequently I conclude that I do not have clear and sufficient evidence before me to warrant the granting of planning permission. 15. Planning permission should therefore be withheld, and I dismiss the appeal. G Garnham INSPECTOR