Alterations at second floor level for French doors to a window and glass panel and changes from a flat roof to a lean to glass roof on side of extension(retrospective)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 July 2019 by Steven Hartley BA (Hons) Dist.TP (Manc) DMS MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:5 July 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/U5360/D/19/3227876 35 Elderfield Road, Hackney, London E5 0LG • 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 Ms Greta Wynn Davies against the decision of the London Borough of Hackney Council. • The application Ref 2019/0465 dated 6 February 2019, was refused by notice dated 4 April 2019. • The development proposed is alterations at second floor level for French doors to a window and glass panel and changes from a flat roof to a lean to glass roof on side of extension(retrospective). Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted at 35 Elderfield Road, Hackney, London E5 0LG, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 2019/0465, dated 6 February 2019 for the following: - A. In relation to the proposed alterations at second floor level, from French doors to a window and glass panel, in accordance with the following conditions: - i. The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision. ii. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans in so far as they relate to the replacement window and glass panel: Existing pre-2015 (A 01 101 00;102 00;201 00 and 301 00). Plans no (A 02101 00;102 00;201 00 and 301 00). Plans no (A 03 101 00;102 00; 201 00; 301 00 and 601 00). B. In relation to the glass monopitch roof to the existing ground floor, rear extension, in accordance with the above plans, in so far as they relate to the glass roof. Preliminary matters. 2. Since the submission of the appeal, an updated version of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019) (the Framework) has been APP/U5360/D/19/3227876 2 published by the Government. This is a material consideration in planning decisions. In relation to the main issues in this appeal, Government policy has not materially changed, and it was not therefore necessary to invite any further comments from the different parties involved. 3. The application form states that the proposed development is for a ‘single storey rear extension’. However, the appeal form and the decision notice describe it as ‘Alterations at second floor level from French doors to a window and fixed glass panel. Changes from a flat roof to a lean to glass roof on rear side extension (retrospective)’. The appellant, on the appeal form, notes the amended description used by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). I have determined the appeal on the basis of the LPA description, and I have included this in the banner heading for reasons of certainty. 4. In its Decision Notice, the LPA refers to policies in the London Plan (2008) and in the London Plan (2011). The LPA has been given an opportunity to point to the same policy references in the latest London Plan (2016) (LP) and the appellant has been made aware of the matter and been given an opportunity to comment. In determining the appeal, I have considered the same policies but as stated in the most up to date LP (2016) and which the LPA has referred to as policies 7.4 and 7.6. 5. The appeal relates to two matters. The first concerns alterations at second floor level to replace a French door by a window and a fixed glass panel in a bathroom. The French doors open onto a flat roof which, it is alleged, is being used as a terrace. A brick balustrade has been constructed around its edge. 6. The alleged use of the flat roof has given rise to objections from adjoining residents. The appellant states that the proposed replacement of the French doors by a window and a glass panel would be to show that the flat roof is not being used as a terrace other than to gain access to water plants. 7. However, the alleged use of the flat roof as a terrace or the construction of its brick balustrade, do not form part of the appeal: it is only concerned with the refusal to grant permission for the replacement of the French door by a window and glass panel. Any use relating to the flat roof and the construction of the brick balustrade would be a separate matter unrelated to this appeal. 8. The second part of the appeal relates to the replacement of a roof to a ground floor extension by a glass roof and which has already been constructed. Main issues 9. The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area and (ii) the impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of adjoining premises by reason of overlooking and disturbance. Reasons Character and appearance 10. The appeal property is a three storey terraced dwelling house in a predominantly residential area of similar houses. APP/U5360/D/19/3227876 3 11. The proposed replacement of the existing French doors by a window and glass panel would be located to the rear of the property which is well hidden from public view. I was able to see glimpses of the French doors from the adjoining Glenarm Road, but the proposed replacement window and glass panel would fit within the existing door opening and, in appearance, would have no noticeable difference. Furthermore, the adjoining dwellings have a variety of windows to their rear elevations. 12. The proposed development at first floor level would not detract from the character or appearance of the dwelling or that of the street scene. 13. The glass roof to the ground floor extension is also well hidden from public view and is located to the rear of the property. It has a limited size and relates well in design terms both to the extension beneath it and also to the design of the original dwelling. For these reasons, I find that it does not detract from the character or appearance of the building or of the street scene. 14. I therefore conclude that the proposed window and glass panel at first floor level and the glass roof at ground level would not be contrary to the Hackney Core Strategy (2010) (CS) policy 24, which seeks to enrich and enhance Hackney’s built environment, nor would it be contrary to the Hackney Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2009) (SPD), which contains advice and standards for rear and other extensions, balconies and terraces. The LPA refers to the London Plan (2008) (LP) policy 4B.1. However, the LP 2008 has been superseded by the LP 2016, and I have not been referred by the LPA to any equivalent policy in the latter document. I am therefore unable to consider the proposed development against lp 2008. Nevertheless, I have also considered chapter 12 of the Framework, which stresses the need for good design: I conclude that the proposed development would not be contrary to its stated aims. Living conditions of adjoining occupiers 15. The proposed replacement of French doors by a window and glass panel would have no significantly adverse impact upon the living conditions of neighbours in terms of noise or visual intrusion. The external opening and the amount of glass would not increase, and the proposed development would not extend beyond the rear external wall. 16. The replacement glass roof to the single storey extension is close to windows to the adjoining property at No 33 Elderfield Road where occupants have objected on the basis of noise, additional illumination and overlooking into their adjoining habitable rooms, especially bedrooms. However, I was able to see on my site visit that the adjoining windows are not in a direct sight line; views from within the extension and through the glass roof are limited, and in addition, the angle of vision is not one which would be easily or likely to be regularly used. 17. The glass roof is limited in its size and any noise emanating through it, as opposed to through its glass sides, is unlikely to be so great as to significantly alter the living conditions of the neighbours by reason of any additional noise. 18. I give some weight to the emission of light through the glass roof, particularly in relation to bedroom windows which overlook it. Such light emission will add to that escaping from the sides of the extension. However, any such nuisance APP/U5360/D/19/3227876 4 is likely to be limited to hours of darkness and when bedroom curtains or blinds are likely to be closed. 19. For these reasons, I find that the glass roof would not cause significantly adverse living conditions to adjoining occupiers by way of noise, overlooking or light emission. 20. I therefore conclude that the replacement of the French windows by a window and glass panel at first floor level, and the glass roof to the ground floor rear extension, would not be contrary to the aims of CS policy 24 or to its SPD where such aims have already been stated. The LPA considers that the impact of the proposed development upon the living conditions of adjoining occupiers would be contrary to policy 7.4 of the LP (2016). However, policy 7.4 is concerned with character and appearance rather than with living conditions and I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not be contrary to its provisions. Paragraph 7.6 of the LP (2016) requires that new development should not unacceptably harm the living conditions of adjoining occupiers, but I have concluded that this would not apply in this case. Other matters 21. The LPA refers to instances where applications for rear terraces have been refused permission and to the planning history of the appeal building where such a use has been refused. However, the appeal does not relate to the use of the flat roof but is concerned with the proposed replacement of the French doors and with the glass roof to the ground floor rear extension. I have considered the proposed development on the evidence before me and in relation to the appeal issues. 22. The LPA considers that the replacement of the French door by a glass panel and a window would not stop the alleged use of the flat roof as a residential terrace. However, any such use of the flat roof is not a matter before me. In any event, the replacement window and glass panel would not make any such alleged use of the flat roof any easier than at present. 23. The above matter does not alter my conclusions on the main issues. Conclusion 24. For the reasons given above, and considering all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Steven Hartley INSPECTOR