Rear extension to detached garage conversion to provide habitable ancillary accommodation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 January 2019 by Elizabeth Lawrence BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/T0355/D/18/3215670 95 Dedworth Road, Windsor, SL4 5BB.  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 Simon Tattersfield against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.  The application Ref 18/01771, dated 14 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 16 August 2018.  The development proposed is described as a rear extension to detached garage conversion to provide habitable ancillary accommodation. This decision is issued in accordance with Section 56(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) and supersedes the decision issued on 17 January 2019. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a rear extension to detached garage conversion to provide habitable ancillary accommodation at 95 Dedworth Road, Windsor, SL4 5BB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/01771, dated 14 June 2018 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not 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: 81622, 81623, 81624 and 81625. 3) The external materials to be used in the construction of the first-floor side extension hereby permitted shall match those of the host dwelling. 4) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as 95 Dedworth Road. Main Issues 2. The first main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The second main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook, privacy, noise and activity. Reasons Character and appearance Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/18/3215670 2 3. The Appeal site is located within a mixed residential and commercial area where dwelling types, plot widths and sizes and the intensity of development varies. 4. The Appeal site is located towards the end of a row of family sized semi- detached houses with generous sized rear gardens. There are numerous outbuildings within the rear garden environment and this includes a number of large outbuildings. A short distance to the east of the Appeal site is a commercial building with a similar depth plot. A long row of garages project into its rear yard area and planning permission has been granted for a two storey dwelling towards the rear of the plot. This plot adjoins the rear garden to 93 Dedworth Road (No.93). A short distance to the west of the Appeal site is a car park within the rear garden environment which serves a medical practice. 5. The Appeal property comprises a large semi-detached house with large gardens to the front and rear. Within the rear garden is a former detached flat roofed brick built garage, which is located immediately adjacent to the dwelling and backs onto the boundary with 97 Dedworth Road, (No.97). This former garage has been converted to ancillary accommodation. It includes a bedroom, shower room and a sitting area. There are tall hedges along the boundaries between the Appeal dwelling and the adjacent dwellings on either side. 6. Collectively, policies DG1, H10 and H11 of The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (Framework), seek to ensure that new development respects and is sympathetic to the character and appearance of its surroundings. It should not appear cramped or otherwise cause damage to the character and amenity of the area. At the same time new development should be well designed, function well and optimise the potential of a site. Policy SP3 of the Borough Local Plan 2013 – 2033 Submission Version (Emerging Local Plan) are consistent with this. 7. Whilst slightly wider, the proposed extension would form a continuation of the existing outbuilding and would project to within 8 metres of the rear boundary of the property. It would be modest in form and appearance and would be constructed from materials that match the existing outbuilding and the host dwelling. Due to its modest form and height it would respect the overall character and appearance of the rear garden environment. Also, due to its combined length and width the resultant rear garden would remain spacious. 8. As suggested by the Council the use of matching external materials and adherence to the submitted drawings can both be secured through the imposition of conditions. These conditions would be necessary to ensure that the proposed extension respected the host dwelling and existing outbuilding and in the interests of certainty. 9. The proposed extension would not be visible from the street scene and the existing driveway is large enough to accommodate five cars, which should be adequate for a single household located in an accessible area. Whilst cars are double parked, this is not unusual for a single dwelling and is typical of many of the dwellings in the locality, which have deep front gardens. 10. The Council has expressed concern that the Appeal proposal could set a precedent for similar proposals in the locality, which could undermine and harm Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/18/3215670 3 the character and appearance of the area. For the reasons set out above, the Appeal proposal would respect and be readily assimilated into its surroundings. Were other proposals to come forward they would need to be assessed on their individual and cumulative impact on the spacious character and appearance of the rear garden environment, having regard to their immediate and wider setting. As such, the Appeal proposal would not set a precedent for proposals that would harm the character and appearance of the locality. 11. I conclude on the first main issue that the proposed scheme would respect the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore comply with policies DG1, H10 and H11 of the Local Plan, policy SP3 of the emerging Local Plan and the Framework. Living conditions 12. The proposed resultant building would be sited immediately adjacent to and would run along a significant proportion of the side boundary with No.97. However, it would be just 2.6 metres in height and would be separated from that property by a hedge. There is a garden shed in the rear garden at No.97 that is located adjacent to the side boundary with the Appeal property and towards the rear of the existing ancillary building. As a result of these factors, with the Appeal scheme, the main outlook from the rear windows of the dwelling at No.97 is towards the end of its deep and spacious rear garden. 13. There would be no windows or other openings in the western side or roof of the resultant ancillary building and its small kitchen/living area would be immediately adjacent to the kitchen/diner and living room of the host dwelling at No.95. Any additional parking generated by the use of the proposed extension would be accommodated at the front of the property within the existing driveway, which is located alongside the driveway to No.97. In addition, pedestrian access would be alongside the existing side access to the host dwelling and the side access to No.97. 14. For these reasons the proposal would not result in a material loss of privacy or noise and disturbance for the occupiers of No.97. 15. The resultant building would be sited approximately nine metres from the boundary with No.93 and would be partially screened from that dwelling by the existing Appeal dwelling. This includes the existing/proposed sitting area, which would be located adjacent to the kitchen/diner and living room within the host dwelling. 16. Whilst the window to bedroom 2 and the dressing room window would face towards No.93, there is a tall fence along the boundary between the two properties and so there would be no loss of privacy within the garden at No.93. In addition, the dwelling at No.93 would be sited some distance to the northeast and is partially screened from the appeal site by planting and the existing boundary treatment. As a result, the proposal would not result in a material loss of privacy for the occupiers of No.93. The window to bedroom 1 would face the rear of the site and so would not be visible from No.93. 17. For these reasons the proposal would not result in visual intrusion or have a materially adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.93, due to privacy, outlook, noise or disturbance. Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/18/3215670 4 18. Finally, having regard to the modest height and form of the proposed extension and the distance between the Appeal structure and the adjacent dwellings to the south, the proposal would not have a materially harmful impact on the living conditions of their occupiers. 19. The situation could be different if the proposed outbuilding was occupied by persons unrelated to the occupancy of the host dwelling. This is because the tandem parking, sub-division of the rear garden, inter-looking and close proximity of any domestic activities generated by a totally independent occupancy could impact on the living condition of the occupiers of the host dwelling and potentially the occupiers of No.93 and No.97. The sub-division of the rear garden could also impact on the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, for the avoidance of any doubt about the ancillary nature of the proposed use, I consider that a condition which restricts the use of the proposed extension to ancillary accommodation only is both necessary and reasonable. 20. I conclude on the second main issue that the proposal would not have a materially harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook, privacy, noise and activity. The proposal would therefore comply with policies NAP3 and H11 of the Local Plan and policy SP3(1) of the emerging Local Plan. Collectively and amongst other things these policies seek to protect the living conditions of existing residents. Conclusion 21. The conclusions on both main issues weigh in favour of allowing the Appeal, subject to the conditions referred to. Elizabeth Lawrence INSPECTOR