Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 January 2019 by R C Shrimplin MA(Cantab) DipArch RIBA FRTPI FCIArb MCIL an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 22nd March 2018 Appeal Reference: APP/D1590/D/18/3216106 59 Eastwood Boulevard, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex SS0 0BY • 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 and Mrs A. O’Keefe against the decision of Southend-on-Sea Borough Council. • The application (reference 18/01344/FULH dated 12 July 2018) was refused by notice dated 7 September 2018. • The development proposed is described in the application form as a “single storey rear extension”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a “single storey rear extension” at 59 Eastwood Boulevard, Westcliff-on-Sea, Essex SS0 0BY, in accordance with the terms of the application (reference 18/01344/FULH dated 12 July 2018), subject to the following conditions. 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: drawing no. 200-01 (As Existing Layout Plans and Site Location Plan); drawing no. 201-01 (As Proposed Layout Plans); drawing no. 202-01 (As Existing and Proposed Elevations); drawing no. 203-01 (As Existing and Proposed Section); drawing no. 203-01 (As Existing and Proposed Block Plans). 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main issue 2. The main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the extension on the residential amenities of neighbours (whether unacceptable harm would be caused by overbearing appearance and loss of outlook, or an unacceptable loss of light). Appeal Decision: APP/D1590/D/18/3216106 2 Reasons 3. Eastwood Boulevard is a busy thoroughfare, with speed restrictions, set with established planting. It is located in a predominantly residential area of Westcliff-on-Sea. The appeal site lies on the eastern side of the road, in a residential frontage, with a school playing field opposite. 4. Number 59 Eastwood Boulevard is one of a pair of semi-detached houses constructed in an attractive traditional style, with white rendered external walls under pitched tiled roofs. A rear projecting two-storey wing on the north side of the house has a small bay at ground level, containing part of the kitchen. The main part of the house also has a small single-storey section, at the rear of the living room. 5. It is now proposed to remove the single-storey sections at the rear of the house and to construct a deeper single-storey extension across the whole of the rear elevation. The new extension would project beyond the two-storey parts of the existing building, to align with the rear wall of the kitchen bay, and a new shallow pitched roof would slope away from the main part of the building. 6. The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ has the aim of making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity but it also emphasises the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12). It is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, which includes achieving “a high standard of amenity for existing and future users” (paragraph 127). 7. Local Policies in the Development Plan reinforce this basic aim, notably Policies KP2 and CP4 of the ‘southend on sea core strategy’ and Policies DM1 and DM3 of the ‘Development Management Document July 2015’. The Council’s ‘supplementary planning document 1 – design and townscape Guide 2009’, is also relevant, though it does not have the same force as Policies in the Development Plan. 8. The design of the proposed rear extension would be architecturally in keeping with the host building and it would have no material effect on the streetscene. It would, however, be constructed against the boundary of the neighbouring semi-detached house, number 57, to the south, on which it would have an impact. 9. The part of the boundary that is closest to the two houses is currently defined by a high brick wall, with a fence and shrubbery on the boundary beyond. The neighbouring house has a similar existing small single storey section to the main part of the house, similar to that at number 59, though the kitchen bay is not reflected. The proposed extension would extend beyond the rear of the house at number 57. 10. These existing features on the boundary have an effect on the outlook from the affected ground floor habitable room at number 57 but, in any case, the side wall of the proposed extension would be at its highest adjacent to the existing two-storey main rear wall of the existing pair of houses (where the existing single-storey section is attached), sloping away to a conventional eaves. The flank wall of the proposed extension would not be excessively long and would Appeal Decision: APP/D1590/D/18/3216106 3 not have an unacceptably overbearing appearance (though it would be desirable for it to match other finishes, for the sake of architectural consistency). Nor would the extension cause an unacceptable loss of light to the neighbours. 11. In short, while the proposed extension would have some effect on the outlook from the rear of number 57 Eastwood Boulevard and its garden, its appearance would not be so oppressive as to justify a refusal of planning permission. Both properties have the benefit of relatively long gardens, by modern standards, and the existing, rather enclosed, space at the rear of number 57 would be balanced by the nature of the garden as a whole. 12. Thus, the project would not be in conflict with the national legislation or the Development Plan (including the Policies that have been identified above) and it is acceptable in planning terms. 13. In conclusion, the appeal scheme would amount to a modest extension to the existing dwelling but it would provide useful additional space and would, thereby, add to the stock of residential accommodation in the locality, albeit in a very limited way. I am persuaded that the scheme before me can properly be permitted and, although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision. 14. I have, however, also considered the need for conditions and, in imposing conditions, I have taken account of those suggested by the local planning authority in the usual way (without prejudice to their main arguments in the appeal). I have concluded that conditions are necessary, to define the planning permission and to ensure that quality is maintained. Roger C Shrimplin INSPECTOR