Ground floor rear extension 6m deep, 3m high to the eaves with the maximum height of 3m

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 May 2019 by Thomas Bristow BA MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/F5540/D/19/3225688 99 Sutton Road, Hounslow TW5 0PN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the ‘GPDO’). • The appeal is made by Mr Suresh Kumar against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Hounslow. • The application Ref 01096/99/PA1, dated 19 February 2019, was refused by notice dated 22 March 2019. • The development proposed is a ground floor rear extension 6m deep, 3m high to the eaves with the maximum height of 3m. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and approval is granted under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO for a ground floor rear extension 6m deep, 3m high to the eaves with the maximum height of 3m at 99 Sutton Road, Hounslow TW5 0PN, in accordance with the details submitted via application Ref 01096/99/PA1, dated 19 February 2019, subject to the schedule of conditions below. Planning context 2. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO grants permitted development rights for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse subject to certain limitations and conditions. In this case the development proposed relates to the limitations defined by paragraph A.1(g), subject to the associated conditions in paragraph A.4. However the time limit of 30 May 2019 given in paragraphs A.1(g) and in A.4(13), is to be deleted.1 3. Having received application Ref 01906/99/PA1, in line with GPDO paragraph A.4(5) the Council notified the owners and occupiers of adjoining properties. An objection was then received, related to No 97 (which is subdivided into flats). That refers solely to the absence of a party wall notice at that juncture, a separate legal matter; it is not an objection to the development proposed per se in planning terms. Thereafter the Council refused permission on the basis that adverse effects would result to the amenity of the occupants of No 97. 1 By the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development, Advertisement and Compensation Amendments) (England) Regulations 2019, which are intended to come into force on 25 May 2019. Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/19/3225688 2 Main issue 4. In that context, GPDO paragraph A.4(9)(b) in particular, the main issue is the effect of the development proposed on the living conditions of the occupants of No 97 in respect of outlook. Reasons 5. No 99 is a post-war semi-detached property fronting Sutton Road, one of a pair with No 97. In era and form many nearby properties are similar. The proposed extension would project six metres beyond the rear elevation of the property, have a flat roof, and reach a maximum height at the boundary of the three metres. Supporting plan 99 002 illustrates how that would fractionally exceed the level at which the elevations of No 99 turn from brick to render. That height is roughly aligned with that of an existing single storey extension to No 97 with rearwards-facing windows set hard-up against the boundary between the two properties.2 I accept that from within that element of No 97 and immediately outside of it the proposal would reduce a sense of openness, being more substantial than the standard-height fencing which is currently present. 6. However No 99 and its immediate neighbours benefit from comparatively generous, lengthy rear gardens. The prevailing extent of residential plots is more modest, often significantly so (such as in respect of properties along Sutton Hall Road and Camborne Way close by). There is therefore an atypical sense of openness here at present. Moreover many nearby properties have been extended to the rear, such as Nos 103 and 105, and others have substantial outbuildings, such as Nos 101, 95 and 93. No 99 is therefore something of an exception; its rear elevation remains essentially that of the original property and its plot is largely open aside from established planting and trees.3 That context would, to a large extent, off-set any increased sense of enclosure from the proposal to the occupants of No 97. 7. Furthermore there are two extensions, or elements of an extension, to No 97. The other than that referred to above is a substantial two storey addition on the opposite side of the house. That extension projects significantly further into the rear garden of the property, it appeared to me to a depth beyond the rear elevation of the property broadly comparable with that of the scheme to which this appeal relates. By virtue of its height and bulk that element of the adjoining property results in a significant sense of enclosure around the single storey extension to No 97; relative to it the consequences of the development proposed would be highly limited. Moreover, although did not inspect No 97 internally, the two storey addition has a ground floor window facing rearwards; the outlook and sense of openness from which would not be significantly affected from the scheme. 8. There is sufficient separation from neighbouring No 101 such that the form of the proposal would not adversely affect amenity in that regard, noting that much of the proposal would likely be screened by a substantial existing 2 Apparently referenced in the Council’s officer report as around three metres in depth. 3 Noting that certain outbuildings may not require specific planning permission. Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/19/3225688 3 outbuilding to that property. Nevertheless there is the potential for loss of privacy by consequence of the window proposed within the side elevation of the scheme facing the plot of No 101 (and, potentially, were further side-facing windows or doors to be installed in the future). However restrictions could be put in place by suitably-worded conditions in those regards, as set out below. 9. For the above reasons, whilst I acknowledge that the proposal would result in a slightly increased sense of enclosure, given the nature of the scheme and its specific surrounding context the scheme would not unacceptably affect the amenity of the occupants of adjoining premises. Although the statutory basis for permitted development and determining applications differs, nonetheless by consequence no conflict arises with the relevant provisions of policies CC2 and SC7 of the Hounslow Local Plan (adopted 15 September 2015). In summary those policies, consistent with paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘NPPF’), seek to ensure that all development functions well within its surrounding context and secures an acceptable standard of amenity for those nearby. 10. I note that the Council’s Residential Extensions Guidelines (adopted 20 December 2017) recommend that single storey rear extensions to semi- detached properties should be no more than 3.65 metres from rear elevations, notwithstanding the provisions of the GPDO. However that is in part justified on the basis of ensuring visual subservience (which is not explicitly related to amenity within the terms of GPDO paragraph A.4(7)). That figure is also justified on the basis of ensuring that an unacceptable sense of enclosure would not result; as reasoned above that would not occur in this instance. Conditions 11. Certain requirements of development as is proposed here are already set out in legislation and it is therefore unnecessary to repeat them in conditions; GPDO paragraph A.4(11)(a) in particular specifies that the development must be carried out in accordance with the approved details (which in this case are shown principally on drawing 99 002). Nevertheless paragraph A.4(1) allows for the imposition of conditions which are ‘reasonably related to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises’. In that context the Council have proposed four conditions, the substance of only one of which is necessary. 12. The requirement to complete the development proposed on or before 30 May 2019, and to notify the Council of completion, are intended to be removed by legislation due to come into force on 25 May 2019 referenced above. The Council’s suggested condition regarding external materials to be used is not explicitly related to the amenity of adjoining premises, and in any event is effectively required by the provisions of GPDO paragraph A.3(a). 13. Whilst I have reasoned above that the proposal would not give rise to unacceptable effects to the amenity of neighbouring properties, nevertheless conditions are clearly justified to prevent unacceptable loss of privacy to neighbouring properties by consequence of the potential installation of windows Appeal Decision APP/F5540/D/19/3225688 4 within the side elevations of the scheme. In imposing conditions I have had regard to the relevant provisions of the NPPF, Planning Practice Guidance and of statute. Thomas Bristow INSPECTOR SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1) Before the development hereby permitted is first brought into use the window in the side elevation, as shown on supporting drawing 99 002, shall be installed as obscured glazed, and non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor level of the room in which the window is installed. The window shall thereafter be retained as such. 2) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (or any order amending or revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or openings other than as shown on the approved details pursuant to paragraph A.4 (11)(a) of that Order, supporting drawing 99 002, shall be installed or created in the side elevations of the development hereby permitted.