Part two storey, part single storey rear extension, with side dormers, following demolition of existing conservatory

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 April 2019 by Michael Evans BA MA MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8th April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/L3625/D/19/3220967 47 Tattenham Way, Burgh Heath KT20 5LX • 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 S Collison against the decision of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/01841/HHOLD, dated 29 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 5 November 2018. • The development proposed is a part two storey, part single storey rear extension, with side dormers, following demolition of existing conservatory. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a part two storey, part single storey rear extension, with side dormers, following demolition of existing conservatory at 47 Tattenham Way, Burgh Heath KT20 5LX, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/01841/HHOLD, dated 29 August 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby 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: 16067/10, 16067/11, 16067/12, 16067/13 and 16067/14. 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. 4) Prior to occupation of the development hereby permitted, the proposed first floor bedroom window in the dormer addition facing towards no. 49 Tattenham Way and the first floor en-suite window in the dormer addition facing no. 45 Tattenham Way shall both be installed with obscured glass and with any opening being at a minimum height of 1.7m above internal floor level. The windows shall thereafter be retained in accordance with these details. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings at 45 and 49 Tattenham Way, with regard to light levels, outlook and privacy. Appeal Decision APP/L3625/D/19/3220967 2 Reasons 3. The two storey part of the proposed extension would be adjacent to a ground floor window in the side of the neighbouring property at no. 49. As a result, there would be some reduction in the outlook and light received from this opening due to the height and proximity of the addition. However, it is currently subject to a noticeable degree of enclosure and some loss of light from the boundary fence and conservatory at the host dwelling, despite the extent of glazing in the latter structure. 4. Moreover, the living room that this opening serves has a larger window to the other side. This provides an appreciably more open outlook, while also in itself enabling fairly good light levels to the room. The overall space is not especially wide so that the distance between the windows is relatively modest. As a result of these factors, the light levels and outlook in the living room as a whole would be acceptable with the quality of the environment not being unduly diminished. 5. The Council’s report on the application indicates conflict with advice in the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), Householder Extensions and Alterations, March 2004, because the extension would project above a 25 degree line rising vertically from the window at no. 49. However, it is made clear in the guidance that other considerations can be taken into account when applying this. 6. These include whether the affected window is the primary light source for that room and the presence of other unaffected windows. In this case there is an unaffected window and this comprises the primary source because of matters such as its noticeably larger size and appreciably less restricted receipt of light. As a result of this and the absence of any unacceptable impact, the breaching of the 25 degree line by the development would not warrant rejection of the appeal in this case. 7. In relation to the dwelling to the other side at no. 45, the Council indicates that the scheme would not extend beyond a vertical 45 degree line but protrude beyond a horizontal 45 degree line, as set out in the SPG. However, the extent of the conflict would be relatively modest and only concern a corner of the single storey part. Both the host and neighbouring dwelling would be set back significantly from the boundary, with a garage at no. 45 between the houses. 8. The two storey part of the extension would have a hipped end. The roof of the single storey part would be mainly flat with slopes down to the end and side, with a fairly modest height. These factors would significantly limit the bulk and impact of the enlarged dwelling. As a result, I share the view of the Council that there would be no unacceptable effect on light levels or outlook at this neighbouring house, despite the infringement of the 45 degree line. 9. There would be new dormer additions with first floor windows to each side. The existing rear bedroom would have a new opening facing no. 49, with the new en-suite window in the side dormer on the other side facing no. 45. The proximity and position of these windows would enable undue overlooking of the adjacent properties. However, I am satisfied that a condition requiring obscured glass and restricted opening would be sufficient to protect the privacy of the adjacent occupiers. Appeal Decision APP/L3625/D/19/3220967 3 10. In consequence, the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwellings would not be harmed. As a result, there would be compliance with Reigate and Banstead Borough Local Plan 2005, Policies Ho 9, Ho 13 and Ho 16 and the National Planning Policy Framework, insofar as they are concerned with preventing such detrimental effects. 11. Taking account of all other matters raised, given the absence of any harm it is determined that the appeal succeeds. In addition to that referred to above, a condition specifying the approved plans is necessary to provide certainty. The facing materials used in the development should match those of the host dwelling in order to protect its appearance. M Evans INSPECTOR