Demolition of the existing conservatory and the erection of a single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 December 2018 by Megan Thomas Barrister-at-Law an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Decision date: 10th January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/X0415/D/18/3214134 3 Woodside Avenue, Chesham Bois, HP6 6BG  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 & Mrs Reed against the decision of Chiltern District Council.  The application Ref PL/18/2048/FA, dated 29 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 25 July 2018.  The development proposed is the demolition of the existing conservatory and the erection of a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of the existing conservatory and the erection of a single storey rear extension at 3 Woodside Avenue, Chesham Bois, HP6 6BG in accordance with the terms of a planning application Ref PL/18/2048/FA, dated 29 May 2018, subject to the following conditions: (1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. (2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. (3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: drawing nos 203/02 AP1 and 203/01 AP1. Main Issue 2. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of 2 Woodside Avenue with regard to outlook and light. Reasons 3. The appeal site is a semi-detached dwelling on the north east side of Woodside Avenue in a residential area of Chesham Bois. Its semi-pair is 2 Woodside Avenue and this is located to the north west of the appeal site. The main rear elevations of the dwellings are at the same depth. However, the appeal site has a rear ground floor conservatory. The rear gardens of the dwellings are at Appeal Decision APP/X0415/D/18/3214134 2 a lower level than the dwellings. No.2 has a main habitable room with a large sliding glass door at the rear elevation. This has external wooden steps which facilitate access down to the rear garden. The appeal site also has a platform and steps down to the rear garden from the existing conservatory. 4. The proposed development would involve demolishing the rear conservatory and erecting a single storey rear extension which would be deeper, higher and wider than the existing conservatory. When in the rear garden of no.2 and when looking out of the sliding door, the proposed north western elevation would appear more dominant than the existing conservatory. However, it would not result in a loss of outlook or a loss of light that I consider would warrant refusal of the planning permission. I noted on my site visit that there is an existing wooden fence on the boundary which is of differing heights but which screens part of the existing conservatory flank wall. This would remain on the common boundary. Furthermore, the proposed north western flank wall would step in from the common boundary at a position not dissimilar to the existing flank wall of the conservatory. It would therefore appear less overbearing than if it matched the full depth of the proposed south eastern wall of the extension. The proposed increase in depth closest to the common boundary (over and above the existing conservatory flank wall) would be modest and would not cause an unacceptable loss of light or an overbearing presence. The proposed extension would have a gable end and its eaves would be in a similar position to those of the existing conservatory and its roof would slope away from the rear garden of no.2, thus reducing its visual impact when viewed from the garden of no.2. 5. For all those reasons I take the view that the proposal would not be unduly harmful to the amenity of the occupants of no.2 notwithstanding that the extension would breach the 45 degree angle measured from the sliding door of no.2. There would be no significant detriment to the occupants of no.2 in respect of light or aspect. 6. I conclude that the proposed extension would not unduly harm the living conditions of the occupants of no.2 Woodside Avenue with regard to loss of outlook or loss of light. It would not be contrary to policies GC3, H13 or H14 of the Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (including alterations adopted 2001 & consolidated September 2007 & November 2011) or the Residential Extensions and Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document (September 2013). The overall depth of no.3 would elongate the existing dwelling but not to such an extent that it would harm the pattern, character or appearance of the area. Conditions 7. I have considered the imposition of planning conditions in the light of advice in National Planning Practice Guidance. For the avoidance of doubt I have attached a condition which requires the extension to be built in accordance with the approved plans. In order to protect the character and appearance of the host dwelling I have imposed a condition which requires that the materials used in the external surfaces of the proposed extension match those used in the main dwelling. Appeal Decision APP/X0415/D/18/3214134 3 Conclusion 8. Having taken into account all representations made, for the reasons given above, I allow the appeal and grant planning permission for the proposed development. Megan Thomas INSPECTOR