Demolition of existing garage and erection of new single storey rear/side extension together with internal alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 March 2019 by Penelope Metcalfe BA(Hons) MSc DipUP DipDBE MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/P3610/D/19/3219688 113 Waverley Road, Stoneleigh, KT17 2LN • 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 Kay Vaughan against the decision of Epsom and Ewell Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/00509/FLH, dated 17 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 11 October 2018. • The development proposed is demolition of existing garage and erection of new single storey rear/side extension together with internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear and side wrapped around extension, including internal alterations (following demolition of existing side/rear garage) at 113 Waverley Road, Stoneleigh, KT17 2LN, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/00509/FLH, dated 17 August 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: 1:1250 location plan, 1:500 block plan, H1/3/18 and H1/3/18EX. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing building. 4) The roof of the single storey rear element of the development hereby permitted shall not be converted or used as a balcony or sitting out area, and no access shall be gained except for maintenance purposes. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Ms Kay Vaughan against Epsom and Ewell Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Main issue 3. I consider that the main issue in this case is its effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents by reason of overbearing, overshadowing and loss of natural light. Appeal Decision APP/P3610/D/19/3219688 2 Reasons 4. The description of the development has been amended during consideration of the proposal from that set out in the heading above to single storey rear and side wrapped around extension, including internal alterations(following demolition of existing side/rear garage). I consider this to be a clearer description of the development and have determined the appeal accordingly. 5. The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached house with a detached garage to the rear. It is in an established residential area characterised by similar sized properties constructed in a small range of styles typical of 1930s house design. 6. The relevant policy in this case is DM10 of the Epsom and Ewell Borough Council Development Management Policies Document 2015 (the DMPD). This requires development to incorporate principles of good design and, among other things, to have regard to the amenities of occupants and neighbours. 7. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Householder Applications (updated 2005) (the SPG) gives guidance on the design of residential extensions in the context, among other things, of their impact on neighbours in terms of daylighting and privacy. It contains detailed advice on the projection of rear extensions in a variety of circumstances, including two storey extensions to two storey semi-detached houses and single storey extensions to detached and semi-detached single storey houses and to terraced houses. In these cases it recommends a maximum projection of 3.25m. It does not specifically offer advice on single storey rear extensions to two storey semi- detached houses. 8. The proposal includes a single storey rear extension across almost the full width of the existing rear elevation apart from a narrow offset from the side boundary with No. 115, to a depth of approximately 4 metres. It would have a flat roof to a height of approximately 3.4m including the parapet wall with a rooflight and a lantern rooflight. The proposal also includes a single storey side extension which would run the full length of the southern flank elevation and the proposed rear extension, approximately 0.85m from the side boundary. 9. I consider that the proposed rear extension, because of its depth and height and its location to the south of No. 115, would cause some overshadowing and loss of sunlight to the ground floor windows at the latter. It would also have a somewhat overbearing effect on the outlook from No. 115. 10. There is a high fence along the common boundary between Nos. 113 and 115 which takes light from No.115. No. 111, the neighbouring property to the south, projects well beyond the rear elevations of Nos. 113 and 115 and has a substantial single storey rear extension projecting further into the rear garden and a large rear dormer. These features already take sunlight from the rear windows of No. 115. 11. In view of these particular circumstances of the site and the surrounding buildings, I consider that the adverse effects on the outlook from No. 115, although noticeable, would not be markedly different from the existing situation and would not be unacceptable. 12. I have taken account of the representation from the occupiers of No. 115 in support of the application, including their apparent intention to extend their Appeal Decision APP/P3610/D/19/3219688 3 own property. I am mindful that there is no guarantee that such an extension would be carried out and that were there to be no such extension, there would be a noticeable impact on the living conditions of these neighbours. However, in this instance, and in view of the impact of the existing surrounding buildings on the outlook from No. 115, the expression of support carries weight in favour of the appeal. 13. I consider that the proposed single storey side extension is acceptable. It would be set just under 1m from the side boundary with No. 111 and adjacent to the single storey side and rear extension at the latter. It would have no adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 111. It would have a small pitched roof fronting the road and would appear unobtrusive in the street scene. 14. I have taken account of the examples of other rear extensions in the vicinity put forward by the appellant. The circumstances in each of them appear to be different in some respects and I have determined this appeal on its own merits and according to the circumstances of the site itself. 15. I conclude that, although the proposed rear extension would have some impact on the outlook from No. 115, on balance it would not have an unacceptable adverse effect on the living conditions of the neighbours and it would be consistent with DMPD policy DM10. 16. For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed. Conditions 17. I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council, having regard to the tests set out in the Framework. A condition detailing the plans is necessary to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and for the avoidance of doubt. A condition relating to the materials is necessary in order to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development. The condition restricting use of the flat roof as a balcony is necessary and reasonable to protect the privacy of the adjoining residential properties. PAG Metcalfe INSPECTOR