First floor side extension

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 July 2019 by David Fitzsimon MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30th July 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/M3645/D/19/3226771 27 Pollards Oak Crescent, Hurst Green RH8 0JQ • 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 Mrs Louise Kirk against the decision of Tandridge District Council. • The application Ref TA/2019/20, dated 5 January 2019, was refused by notice dated 27 February 2019. • The development proposed is a first floor side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed first floor side extension on the occupiers of No. 102 Pollards Oak Road with particular regards to outlook and access to natural light. Reasons 3. The appeal relates to a semi-detached dwelling. The side elevation of the host dwelling faces the rear elevation of the bungalow at No. 102 Pollards Oak Road and the two properties are separated by a narrow passage. 4. The proposal seeks to build above an existing garage which sits next to the host dwelling, directly on the side boundary. The proposed extension would be finished in matching external materials and it would have a lower roof height than the host dwelling. The Council raises no issue with its overall appearance. 5. However, the extension would be wide and it would span the full depth of the main body of the appeal dwelling. As a result, the first floor side elevation of the dwelling would be brought much closer to the rear elevation of the bungalow at No. 102 Pollards Oak Road, which has a shallow rear garden. 6. I am satisfied that this arrangement would not materially worsen the levels of shadow cast over the rear garden of the bungalow at certain times of the day because the side extension would not be as tall as the host dwelling. Nevertheless, the proposed extension would be much taller than the existing garage, even accounting for its existing parapet roof. Given the shallow depth of the rear garden of No. 102, I consider that the effect of bringing two storey Appeal Decision APP/M3645/D/19/3226771 2 development much closer to the rear of this bungalow in the manner proposed would be overbearing and oppressive. The narrow passage which separates the two properties would not provide adequate mitigation. As a result, and despite an absence of a formal objection from the occupiers of No. 102 Pollards Oak Road, I find that the proposed first floor extension would harm the outlook from the glazed lean-to which spans the rear of this neighbouring dwelling and also from its rear garden. Other considerations 7. The appellant asserts that additional space is required for a growing family and expresses a reluctance to uproot. I also note the appellant’s intention to resume fostering in the future. Whilst I sympathise, no compelling evidence has been advanced to persuade me that the appeal dwelling could not be enlarged in a manner which would not have such a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of a neighbouring dwelling. In any event, the extension is likely to remain long after these cease to be material considerations. I therefore attach only limited weight to them. 8. The appellant asserts that the proposal would not result in overdevelopment or harm the character and appearance of the local area, it would not result in undue overlooking, it would retain adequate private amenity space and private car parking provision and it would not impact on any trees, woodland or wildlife. These matters are not in dispute but they are neutral factors in the overall planning balance. Overall Conclusion 9. I therefore conclude that the proposed first floor extension would unacceptably harm the outlook for the occupiers of No. 102 Pollards Oak Road, contrary to policy CSP18 of the adopted Tandridge District Core Strategy and policy DP7 of the adopted Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies, which seek to protect adequate levels of residential amenity and a satisfactory environment for existing residents. The arguments advanced by the appellant in favour of the proposal do not outweigh this harm and policy conflict therefore the appeal does not succeed. David Fitzsimon INSPECTOR