Erection of a floor built on existing bungalow to form a 2 bedroom house

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 May 2019 by K E Down MA(Oxon) MSC MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22nd May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/J1535/D/19/3225120 Forest Bungalow, Woodside, Thornwood Common, Essex, CM16 6LE • 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 Michael O’Shea against the decision of Epping Forest District Council. • The application Ref EPF/3171/18, dated 15 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 12 February 2019. • The development proposed is erection of a floor built on existing bungalow to form a 2 bedroom house. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a floor built on existing bungalow to form a 2 bedroom house at Forest Bungalow, Woodside, Thornwood Common, Essex, CM16 6LE in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref EPF/3171/18, dated 15 November 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: Location Plan, Block Plan, Proposed Street Scene, plans ref 0.3.A and 0.3.B 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) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the first floor bathroom window has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. Appeal Decision APP/J1535/D/19/3225120 2 Main Issue 2. There is one main issue which is the effect of the proposed extension on the availability of local h ousing choice for people with accessibility needs, including older people. Reasons 3. The appeal dwelling is a small, one bedroom bungalow set in a short row of two storey dwellings in a rural area. There are no shops or services nearby, no evidence of a local bus service and no footways adjacent to the well used highway. Occupiers are therefore likely to be dependent on a car for most journeys. 4. The emerging Epping Forest District Local Plan, Submission Version 2017, identifies a need for accessible housing in the district and states that these needs can be supported by bungalow accommodation. It also identifies a gradual erosion of the existing stock of bungalows. Emerging Policy H1 F therefore resists the loss of bungalows and specialist accommodation. The Inspector’s report into the plan has yet to be published. Nevertheless, the plan has reached an advanced stage and may be given significant weight as a material consideration. 5. It is not clear from the evidence whether the dwelling currently complies with, or could be readily adapted to comply with the optional accessible or adaptable standards referred to in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and set out in Approved Document M: Access to and use of buildings, 2015, incorporating 2016 amendments. Nevertheless, it has level off-street parking and level, if somewhat narrow, access to the front door and may be suitable or adaptable for some people with accessibility needs. 6. However, the rural location of the dwelling, lack of shops and services and dependency on a car make it difficult to envisage that it would be an attractive choice for many with accessibility needs, including older people, notwithstanding that many do drive. The extent to which the appeal dwelling can help meet the objectives of emerging Policy H1 F is therefore limited. 7. The proposed extension would create a first floor above the ground floor which would comprise two bedrooms and a well proportioned bathroom. The ground floor would be altered to form an open plan living area and kitchen and a cloakroom with outward opening door. It appears this could be enlarged, if necessary, to create a shower room. The proposed dwelling is therefore likely to be readily adaptable to suit the needs of some people with accessibility needs, including older people. Moreover, whilst still being a small dwelling, it would also become suitable for a wider range of occupiers, including those requiring live in care and families. 8. The Council states in evidence that its adopted definition of a bungalow includes chalet bungalows and therefore a scheme to create a chalet bungalow may be acceptable. However, given the small size of the dwelling and its constrained plot this may be difficult to achieve. In view of the lack of any objection on grounds of character or appearance and the likelihood that a ground floor shower room could be accommodated if necessary, this therefore appears to be an unnecessary distinction in this case since the objectives of emerging Policy Appeal Decision APP/J1535/D/19/3225120 3 H1 F, to preserve housing stock suitable or adaptable for those with accessibility needs, including older people, would not be materially compromised, particularly given the limited extent to which the existing dwelling, due to its location, is likely to meet such needs. 9. It is concluded on the main issue that the proposed extension would have no materially harmful effect on the availability of local housing choice for people with accessibility needs, including older people. In consequence, although the proposed extension would result in the loss of a bungalow w hich would be contrary to emerging Policy H1 F the objectives of the policy would be met and an exception is justified in this case. 10. Turning to other matters, the occupier of Mayfield, which lies adjacent to the appeal dwelling, is concerned about potential loss of light to side facing windows and loss of privacy to a bedroom and bathroom and the rear garden. There is a gap of some 2.5m between the two dwellings and, having regard to the Council’s evidence as to the rooms served by the various windows, I a gree with their assessment that although there would be some reduction in light and outlook to side facing windows this would not result in any material harm to the living conditions of occupiers. 11. In terms of privacy, the proposed first floor side facing window in the appeal dwelling would serve a bathroom and, as suggested by the Council, could be conditioned to be obscure glazed. With respect to the rear garden, mutual overlooking of rear gardens is not unusual in a row of dwellings and already exists in this row. The addition of a first floor rear window in the appeal dwelling would not therefore result in any unacceptable loss of privacy to either Mayfield or Forest View, which also lies adjacent to the appeal site. 12. In addition to the statutory commencement condition and a condition requiring the proposed bathroom window to be obscure glazed, I agree with the Council that conditions requiring the proposed extension to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and using external materials that match the existing dwelling are necessary in order to preserve the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. 13. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, including third party concerns about increased electricity use and loss of property value which are not material planning matters and the representations of the Parish Council regarding overdevelopment, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. K E Down INSPECTOR