Single storey side and rear extension, involving conversion of a garage into a habitable room and the installation of a chimney stack

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 March 2019 by J Alderman BA(Hons) MA MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Q5300/D/18/3218041 20 Stratfield Park Close, Southgate N21 1BU • 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 Clive Makombera against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Enfield • The application Ref 18/02685/HOU, dated 3 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 21 September 2018. • The development proposed is a single storey side and rear extension, involving conversion of a garage into a habitable room and the installation of a chimney stack. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey side and rear extension, involving conversion of a garage into a habitable room and the installation of a chimney stack at 20 Stratfield Park Close, Southgate N211BU in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/02685/HOU, dated 3 July 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development here by permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Existing Floor Plans PL01 Rev 1; Proposed Floor and Roof Plan PL02 Rev 1; Existing Elevations PL03 Rev 1; Proposed Elevations PL04 Rev 1 Existing Section PL05 Rev 1; Proposed Sections PL06 Rev 1; Site Location Plan; and Block Plan. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Procedural Matter 2. The Council amended the description of development when validating the application to include a reference to the rear extension, a confirmation of that the garage would be converted to habitable rooms and the inclusion of the chimney stack. The appellant did not object to this. For clarity I have included this description in the heading above. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area and whether it constitutes an ancillary dwelling. Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/18/3218041 2 Reasons Character and Appearance 4. The appeal property is a detached dwelling located at the head of a cul-de-sac. The surrounding area consists predominantly of other detached houses of a similar age but of varying designs. The house has a detached garage to the side which is set back from the front of the house. At present there is a gate and a path to the rear garden between the house and the garage. 5. It is proposed to convert part of the garage into residential accommodation and to construct a single storey extension, which would infill the area between the garage and the main house. This would also wrap around part of the rear of the dwelling and provide an access to the rear garden. A new chimney would also be constructed on the side elevation of the property to serve the existing lounge. 6. The width of the proposed extension between the house and the garage is around 1.2m. The impact on the street scene of removing the gate and replacing it with the extension and replacing one of the existing garage doors with a wall and windows would be minimal. The front of the extension would be in line with the existing front building line of the garage and therefore it would not look incongruous or stand too far forward. Moreover, given that some properties in the street only have single garage and there is a mix of both styles and integral and detached garages, the resulting property would not appear an incongruous feature in the street scene. 7. The extension of the rear of the property would not be visible from the street as it would be hidden by the garage and main house and would therefore not impact negatively on the surrounding area. The Council had no objection to the proposed chimney flue and I concur with this view. 8. The current garage roof has a hip roof, the roof over the infill would create a pitched roof running down to a valley with the garage roof. The design would be a little awkward, but not sufficiently so for me to conclude that it would cause undue harm to the host dwelling or to the street scene. 9. For the reasons above I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, the proposal would comply with Policy 3.5 of The London Plan (adopted March 2016), Policy CP30 of The Enfield Plan Core Strategy 2010- 2025 (adopted November 2010), and Policies DMD6, DMD7, DMD11, DMD14 and DMD37 of the Development Management Document (adopted November 2014) (DMD) which seek to ensure that developments have a high quality of design which respects and enhances the quality and character of the area. Ancillary Dwelling 10. The proposed accommodation that would be created by the appeal scheme would comprise a room described as a “bedroom” on the submitted plans, a shower room and a passageway which would connect it to the main house. There would also be an access from the “bedroom” into the garage. 11. The Council state that the development should be viewed as self contained accommodation and therefore a separate planning unit, due to the separate access, the extent of the development and the potential of the remaining Appeal Decision APP/Q5300/D/18/3218041 3 garage area to be used as a kitchen/living area. However, the planning application is for an extension and conversion of the garage not the creation of a separate planning unit, and the appellant has stated that it would only be used by family members. 12. The proposal would not include a kitchen or living area and would be modest in its extent. It is not normally considered that a shower room and bedroom alone could form independent living accommodation. I have no evidence before me that there would be an intention to use the retained garage as a kitchen/living area. The Council refer to the proposed parking area within the retained garage and suggest that it would not be of sufficient size for a car, however, no detailed analysis has been provided to support this. 13. The infill extension would provide connectivity between the new development and the main house, with an internal door between the two that would provide access to the kitchen and other facilities of the main house. The separate access to the garage does not in itself create a new planning unit, as an interconnecting door between a house and an attached garage is not unusual. It could provide access to the street through the garage, although given the limited facilities of the proposed development, a bedroom and shower room and passage way, it could not in any event be considered as an independent dwelling. 14. The assessment of whether accommodation comprises a separate planning unit is a matter of fact and degree and on balance for the reasons given I conclude that the proposed development would not be a separate planning unit and would be ancillary to the existing house. Therefore, the proposal would not be contrary to Policy 3.8 of The London Plan or to Policies DMD8 and DMD12 of the DMD which set out standards for new residential development and require outbuildings to be ancillary to the main dwelling. Conclusion and Conditions 15. For the above reasons I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. 16. In addition to the standard implementation condition it is necessary in the interests of precision, to define the plans with which the scheme should accord. A condition to control the external materials is required in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. J Alderman INSPECTOR