For the construction of a single storey extension to the rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 April 2019 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3 May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/B5480/D/19/3222607 272 Elm Park Avenue, Hornchurch RM12 4PQ • 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 Noor Miah against the decision of the London Borough of Havering Council. • The application Ref P/1572.18, dated 8 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 31 January 2019. • The development proposed is for the construction of a single storey extension to the rear. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a single storey extension to the rear at 272 Elm Park Avenue, Hornchurch RM12 4PQ, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref P/1572.18, dated 8 October 2018 subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out wholly in accordance with the following approved plans: 01 Rev A, 02 Rev A, 03 Rev C, 04 Rev A and 08. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, no window or other opening (other than those shown on the submitted and approved plan,) shall be formed in the flank walls of the extension hereby permitted. 3. The roof area of the extension hereby permitted shall not be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area. Procedural Matters 2. The shell of the extension was substantially complete and therefore development had commenced at the time of my site visit. In addition, the description of proposed works as set out within the planning application form referred to ‘retrospective’ construction of single storey extension to the rear. As the term ‘retrospective’ does not in itself constitute development, I have omitted it from the description of development within the banner heading and decision above. I have determined the appeal on this basis. Appeal Decision APP/B5480/D/19/3222607 2 Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the occupants of 274 Elm Park Avenue, with specific reference to outlook and light. Reasons 4. The appeal relates to a mid-terrace house, with the shell of the single storey extension appearing to be broadly in accordance with the plans that are before me. 274 Elm Park Avenue has a modest conservatory type structure to its rear elevation which would mean that the extension proposed would project approximately a further 4m from the rear of this. I note that the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations SPD (March 2011) (SPD) highlights that as a general rule, houses can be extended from the rear wall of the original dwelling by up to 3m in depth for a terraced house, although this is a guide, as opposed to adopted development plan policy. Furthermore, whilst I fully understand the reason that the application for Prior Approval for an enlarged Permitted Development extension of 6m in depth was refused, nonetheless, I consider that due to the fact that such an extension can be built in similar situations, this is a material consideration of some weight. 5. At 6m the depth of the proposal would clearly be in excess of the SPD, although the height of its roof would be below 3m, which keeps the overall scale and bulk of the structure down. The extension does project higher than the close-boarded fence constructed to each side of the garden, but much like for the appeal site, the garden of no 274 is of a good depth and reasonable width. Therefore, a reasonable level of outlook from the rear of no 274 would be maintained. I note reference within the Council’s Statement to the potential for a ‘tunnelling effect’, however it makes explicit reference to dwellings at 52 and 54 Spencer Road which are some considerable distance away from the appeal site and, therefore is not a determining factor in this appeal. 6. Furthermore, by virtue of its limited height and the orientation with the rear elevation of no 274 facing approximately due south, I consider that the proposal would not give rise to unreasonable loss of sunlight or daylight, notwithstanding that I accept that the extension would conflict with a 45° angle when taken off the boundary at a depth of 3m from the rear of the conservatory structure. 7. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the proposal would not wholly comply with the SPD, nonetheless I consider that it would not conflict with the Development Plan and specifically Policy 7.4 of the London Plan 2016 and Policy DC61 of the London Borough of Havering’s Core Strategy and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document 2008 which together require developments to have regard to the form, function and structure of an area and provide a high quality design response which, amongst other things, enable people to feel comfortable with their surroundings. Conclusions and Conditions 8. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. Appeal Decision APP/B5480/D/19/3222607 3 9. As the development has begun it is not necessary to impose a standard time limit condition, although in the interests of the character and appearance of the area, I consider that it is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. In addition, the Council also recommends two other conditions be imposed, one removing permitted development rights for the insertion of flank windows into the extension and the other preventing the flat roof area of the extension to be used as a balcony, roof garden or similar amenity area. I consider that these conditions are necessary in the interests of preventing overlooking and a consequent loss of privacy to the occupants of neighbouring dwellings. C J Tivey INSPECTOR