Conversion of existing garage into additional living space
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Fallback Position
Conversion/Use
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 23 November 2023
by Lynne Evans BA MA MRTPI MRICS
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 8 December 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/P5870/D/23/3329358
2 Felnex Avenue, Hackbridge SM6 7DP
• 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 Robert Streetley against the decision of the Council of the
London Borough of Sutton.
• The application Ref: DM2023/00546 dated 6 April 2023, was refused by notice dated
21 June 2023.
• The development proposed is conversion of existing garage into additional living space.
Replace external garage door with window to match existing.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. Outline planning permission was granted by the Council under its Ref:
C2014/68760 for the redevelopment the former Felnex Trading Estate for a
residential led, mixed use development, with a number of subsequent
permitted amendments and approval of details. I am advised that permitted
development rights under Classes A-E of the General Permitted Development
Order 2015 were restricted under Condition 6 of the Reserved Matters
Application C2016/73672/ARM.
3. The Officer’s report by the Council lists an extensive number of previous
planning applications under Site History, as well as a number of enforcement
related complaints, but the majority of these relate to the previous use of the
site and surrounding area as a trading estate. Most of these are not therefore
relevant to the current proposal before me.
Main Issue
4. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the
character and appearance of the existing property and on the local area.
Reasons
5. The appeal property is an end of terrace residential property on the west side
of Felnex Road, and forms part of a recent residential led development,
comprising predominantly short terraces and small development blocks. There
is a very strong uniform character and appearance to the residential
development, including the scale and massing of the individual terraces, as well
Appeal Decision APP/P5870/D/23/3329358
2
as the treatment of fenestration and materials used. The regularity of the
design approach to the terraces is a defining characteristic feature of the
immediate context to the appeal property.
6. The proposal would replace the existing garage door with a window, associated
with the proposed use of the internal space as an additional living space. The
proposed window would match the style of the existing windows in the existing
property and the terrace.
7. As set out above, the character and appearance of the terrace and indeed the
wider estate is defined by the very strong uniformity of the design approach. I
did not see on my site visit and my attention has not been drawn to any other
similar changes to the one proposed under this appeal, which have been
permitted or undertaken in the immediate vicinity. Although the proposal, in
itself, would be small scale and the fenestration would match the other
fenestration used on the front façade, the change from a garage door to a
window would be disruptive to the pattern of the development in the terrace
and the wider development. It would result in a visually obtrusive amendment
that would be seen as a marked and harmful change to the uniform character
and appearance of the wider terrace and street scene.
8. I therefore conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the character
and appearance of the local area. This would conflict with Policy 28 of the
Sutton Local Plan 2018 and the National Planning Policy Framework, and
particularly Section 12, both of which amongst other matters, seek a high
quality of design which respects the local context.
Conclusion
9. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I
conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.
L J Evans
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.