Double storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 March 2019 by Michael Evans BA MA MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19th March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/T5720/D/18/3217776 233 Canterbury Road, Morden SM4 6QB • 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 Ms Veronica Njeri against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Merton. • The application Ref 18/P2779, dated 11 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 12 September 2018. • The development proposed is a double storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are: - The effect on the character and appearance of the locality. - The effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling at 1 Dore Gardens, with regard to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal concerns a two storey end of terrace dwelling similar to others on the same side of Canterbury Road and streets branching off it. The proposal would continue the existing ridge line of the main roof and the front and rear walls to the side without any set-backs or being set down. The development would harmonise with and closely reflect the form and design of the host dwelling and other terraced properties in the locality. As a result of this compatibility matters such as the scale and bulk of the extension would not, in themselves, appear excessive. 4. The flank elevation of the host dwelling is adjacent to the property at 1 Dore Gardens. This is one of a number of corner locations on the same side of the street that are characterised by a fairly spacious layout due to the gaps between the two storey dwellings sited at right angles to each other. Although there is no proposed site layout before me in this case, it is clear that the two storey side extension would project particularly close to the boundary with the neighbouring property. This would appreciably diminish the visual gap between the flank of the host dwelling and the rear of that at 1 Dore Gardens. As a Appeal Decision APP/T5720/D/18/3217776 2 result, the development would unduly erode and significantly change the existing spacious relationship, unacceptably disrupting the distinctive pattern of development typically found at road intersections along this side of the street. 5. It is acknowledged that the adjacent property in Dore Gardens has had a two storey side extension of a greater width than now proposed. However, it is set back a significant distance from the side boundary to this property. The appeal scheme, on the other hand, would be unacceptably close to its own side boundary. 6. The garage to the side of the two storey addition at the neighbouring property is only single storey with a flat roof. This significantly limits its bulk and allows an appreciable sense of spaciousness to be retained at first floor level. I do not accept that this addition is visually detrimental given its fairly modest height and scale, with rendered walls that match those of the host dwelling. In any event, the appeal scheme would not significantly change its visibility from the street. The development to the side of the property at 235 Canterbury Road comprises a single storey side extension and a garage of a fairly modest height. 7. In these circumstances the above cases can be clearly distinguished from the current proposal and lend no significant support to the appeal. It is suggested that there are many extensions in the area but no other sites have been specifically identified. 8. The appeal does not concern a Listed Building or development in a Conservation Area. Nevertheless, for the above reasons, it is concluded that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the locality. In consequence, there would be conflict with Policy CS 14 of the LDF Core Planning Strategy (CPS) 2011 and Policies DM D2 and DM D3 of the Council’s Sites and Policies Plan and Policies Maps (SPP) 2014. These seek, amongst other things, high quality design that respects, reinforces and enhances the local character of the area and relates positively and appropriately to the existing street pattern. Living conditions 9. The main part of the rear garden at 1 Dore Gardens is broadly triangular in shape, with the angled boundary reflecting the corner location. It is also fairly modest in size, which makes the quality of the environment for the adjacent occupiers particularly vulnerable to any loss of outlook. 10. The proposed extension would have a chamfered corner next to this area. The addition would be to the south of the host dwelling with the useable garden area at the neighbouring house being to the east of it. It would also have its side elevation largely adjacent to the attached garage at 1 Dore Gardens. 11. However, despite these factors it would result in additional two storey development in particularly close proximity to the triangular area of garden. Users of this amenity space looking to the west currently have a pleasant sense of openness when looking through the gap between the flank of the dwelling at 233 Canterbury Road and the rear of that at 1 Dore Gardens. The bulk and massing of the extension would significantly reduce the extent of this, giving an unpleasant sense of enclosure and an unacceptable loss of outlook. Appeal Decision APP/T5720/D/18/3217776 3 12. The Appellant suggests that the neighbouring dwelling overshadows its own garden and that the two storey extension to it encloses the garden and blocks daylight. However, these effects seem to me to be reasonably inevitable in relation to a north facing property and, if anything, increase the importance of outlook to the quality of the environment at the neighbouring dwelling. In any event, they do not comprise a sound basis for accepting such an adverse impact. 13. For the reasons given it is concluded that the proposal would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. As such there would be conflict with SPP policies DM D2 and DM D3 which, amongst other things, seek to protect the living conditions of neighbours. The Council’s reason for refusal refers to CPS Policy CS 14 but this relates more to the design of new buildings than their impacts on neighbours and I do not consider it to be relevant to this issue. Other considerations 14. This is a case where there are relevant development plan policies that are not out of date. As a result of this and because of the conflict with the development plan the appeal scheme cannot benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework). 15. The Framework seeks the more effective use of land and indicates that decisions should optimise the potential of the site to accommodate an appropriate amount of development. However, it also indicates that decisions should ensure that developments are visually attractive and sympathetic to local character, which would not be achieved by the proposed extension. In this instance the more effective use of land and additional development would be secured at the undue expense of the quality of the built environment and the living conditions of the adjacent occupiers. 16. I am reinforced in my view regarding the adverse impact and unacceptable nature of the development by the importance placed on design in the Framework where it is indicated that the creation of high quality buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve and good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. For the reasons given above, good design would not be secured in this case. 17. I note the absence of any objections from neighbours but this does not, in itself, confer acceptability and I must consider this appeal on its planning merits. Conclusion 18. Taking account of all other matters raised, because of the harm that would arise it is determined that the appeal fails. M Evans INSPECTOR