Single storey timber building for use as a garden room

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 November 2018 by Clive Tokley MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14th November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/C5690/D/18/3211064 45 Ravensbourne Park, London, SE6 4XY • 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 B Leech against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Lewisham. • The application ref DC/18/107007, dated 2 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 28 June 2018. • The development proposed is a single storey timber building for use as a garden room. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining properties as regards overlooking. Reasons 3. The rear garden of the appeal property is mostly laid to grass and is bounded by close boarded fences. The end of the garden steps up and at the time of my visit both the higher-level flat area (described by the appellant as a platform) and its front vertical face were covered by black sheeting. The appellant indicates that the platform was created by a cut and fill process and that it is 0.3 to 0.4 m above the original level. There is no survey drawing and I did not measure the height but my impression was that the platform is at the higher end of that range. 4. The application did not seek permission for the creation of the platform and the consideration of the lawfulness and merits of that development is beyond the scope of this appeal. The application gives no indication of ground levels and I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that the garden room would be built on the platform. The drawing indicates that the garden room would be constructed on a 0.15m high base and therefore the overall height of the structure for which permission is sought would be 3.65m above the platform and around 4m above ground level. 5. As a result of its height and width the garden room would be a dominating structure at the end of the garden. I could see buildings in nearby gardens but as a result of the raised ground level the proposal would be especially prominent and dominant. The boundary fences and vegetation in adjacent Appeal Decision APP/C5690/D/18/3211064 2 gardens limit the extent to which those gardens and the rear-facing windows of neighbouring houses can be seen from the rear garden of No 45. No 47 is well- screened by vegetation and garden sheds; but the high-level veranda and garden room windows would open up views into the end of the rear garden of that property. The proposal would allow wider views above the boundary fence towards the garden and the back windows of No 43. 6. The presence of the proposal with the veranda and windows having an outlook towards the adjacent properties would result in an increase in actual and perceived overlooking of neighbouring gardens and rear windows. The proposal would conflict with Policy 15 of the 2011 Lewisham Core Strategy which indicates, amongst other things, that small scale development will need to address any adverse effect on neighbouring amenity and that small house extensions and adaptations will need to be designed to protect neighbour amenity. It would also conflict with the principles expressed in Policy 31 of the 2014 Development Management Local Plan which indicates that residential extensions should not result in any significant loss of privacy and amenity to adjoining houses and their back gardens. Whilst the proposal is not attached to the dwelling I consider that it is reasonable to apply those principle which are included to safeguard neighbours’ amenity. Conclusion 7. As a result of the elevated position of the proposal I have concluded that it would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings as regards overlooking. Taking account of all matters I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. Clive Tokley INSPECTOR