Erection of a part first floor rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2019 by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Decision date: 26 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/A5270/D/19/3220340 2 Balfour Road, Acton W3 0DQ • 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 Inf against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Ealing. • The application Ref 184593HH, dated 8 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 29 November 2018. • The development proposed is the erection of a part first floor rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted for the erection of a part first floor rear extension at 2 Balfour Road, Acton W3 0DQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 184593HH, dated 8 October 2018, 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: INF-139-01 Rev 1, INF-139-02 Rev 3 and INF-139-03 Rev 4. 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. Procedural Matter 2. The description contained in the Council’s decision notice and appeal form more accurately reflect the proposed development and have been adopted. Main Issue 3. It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 4 Balfour Road. Reasons 4. The proposed development includes a first floor bathroom extension above part of a single storey rear addition. The side elevations of the addition and the proposed extension are sited adjacent to a pedestrian accessway between the appeal property and 4 Balfour Road. The means of enclosure for No. 4 includes a brick wall which is about 3 metres in height as it projects from the rear of this neighbouring property. The property is to the south of No. 4. Appeal Decision APP/A5270/D/19/3220340 2 5. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document 4: Residential Extensions (SPD4) identifies that rear extensions should be designed so problems of dominant or overbearing appearance and overlooking or unacceptable loss of daylight or sunlight do not arise. This design guidance is echoed in Policies 7A and 7B of Ealing’s Development Management Development Plan Document (DPD) which requires a high standard of amenity for adjacent users, including good levels of daylight and sunlight and a positive visual impact. 6. Within the rear elevation of No. 4 the closest opening to the accessway at first floor level is a bathroom window. The appellant has provided a drawing which identifies that the depth of the proposed extension would not encroach into a 45o line drawn from the centre of this window. This line is based upon the BRE Report Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight: A guide to good practice. Based upon the submitted drawing and the observed relationship between the bathroom window and the proposed extension, the appeal scheme would not unacceptably harm either the outlook from this window or the levels of sunlight and daylight reaching this non-habitable room. 7. To the rear of No. 4 at ground floor level there is an opening which is adjacent to the 3 metre boundary wall. This wall already has an impact on levels of sunlight and daylight reaching this opening and also has an impact on the outlook from this opening. The proposed extension would be seen from the garden, including the patio area of No. 4. 8. However, because of the existing relationship between the opening and the wall the proposed depth, massing and height of the proposed extension would not appear an overbearing form of development. Further, and for the same reasons, the appeal scheme would not materially change the current outlook and levels of daylight and sunlight associated with this opening. 9. For the reasons given, it is concluded that the proposed development would nt cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of 4 Balfour Road and, as such, it would not conflict with DPD Policies 7A and 7B, London Plan Policy 7.6 (LP) and SPD4. LP Policy 7.6 also refers to development not causing unacceptable harm to the amenity of surrounding land and buildings, particularly residential buildings, in relation to overshadowing. No specific conflict with DPD Policy 7D concerning open space provision has been identified. Conditions 10. The Council has suggested several conditions in the event this appeal succeeds which have been assessed against the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. For reasons of certainty, a condition is necessary requiring the proposed development to be constructed in accordance with the submitted drawings. It is also necessary for the proposed extension to match the external materials of the host building for reasons of assimilation. For the reasons given, it is concluded that this appeal should be allowed. D J Barnes INSPECTOR