Appeal 3274613

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey side/rear and front porch extension; associated raised platform with stepped access to rear garden and alterations to front hardstanding following demolition of existing detached garage at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/00485/HSE, dated 2 February 2021, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location plan 383-00 [name]; 383-01; 383-02 [name]; 383-03 [name]; 383-04 [name]; 383-05 [name]; 383-06 [name]; 383-07 [name]; and 383-08 [name].

No development shall take place above ground level until full details of the materials to be used on the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The description of proposed development shown in the Council’s decision notice is more precise than that shown in the planning application form and appeal form. I have therefore used this description in the heading above and my decision and determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area; • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 60 and [address], with particular regard to privacy.

[address] predominantly consists of 2 storey detached dwellings of varied architectural design. The properties are set back from the road behind landscaped front gardens, which, together with the generous gaps between the buildings, provides a spacious, suburban character. No 62 is a detached house, which features a 2 storey front bay window and a hipped main roof.

The proposal would replace the existing detached garage to the side of the dwelling with a single storey side and rear extension. The proposed side extension would be designed with a simple mono-pitched roof, and its height and scale would appear subordinate to the host building. Whilst the front windows would be of a different style and materials to the existing windows, there would be limited views from the street due to the setting down of the extension from the road. As such, I do not consider that this would provide sufficient grounds to withhold planning permission.

The Council’s concern principally relates to the rear aspect of the proposal. The design approach would be contemporary, featuring large, glazed sections with aluminium frames, aluminium fascias, and timber cladding. These materials would provide a high quality, lightweight appearance. The height of the extension would be set below the eaves of the main roof, and its scale would appear subordinate. The size and siting of the proposed extension would have little impact on the form and appearance of the host building, and it would not appear dominant. The contemporary design approach would provide a clear distinction between old and new, which would enable the form and proportions of the original building to be read. Having regard to these factors, I find that the proposal would integrate well with the host building.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would maintain the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore accord with Policy DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan 2018 (the Local Plan) and the guidance within the [name] 2019, which seek to create a high quality built environment.

The land level falls to the rear of the site and the appeal property has an existing raised terrace with steps leading down to the garden. The proposed terrace would extend closer to the boundary with No [address]. This includes a section to the rear of the proposed extension which would be adjacent to the boundary with the neighbouring property. The depth of this element would be small, which would limit its use and functionality for recreation. Taking this into account, together with the screening provided by the vegetation within the neighbouring garden, the proposal would not cause an unacceptable level of overlooking into No 60. The proposal therefore would not cause a significant loss of privacy to the occupiers of the neighbouring property.

There would be no changes to the height or siting of the part of the terrace adjacent to No 64. The Council has raised concern regarding the loss of the hedge adjacent to the boundary, however the hedge is on the neighbour’s land and there is no evidence before me that the proposal would result in the loss of the hedge. Given that the proposal would not materially change the extent of the terrace adjacent to No 64, I find that it would not cause a significant loss of privacy to the occupiers of this property.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to privacy. The proposal would therefore accord with Policy DM10 of the Local Plan, which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that the amenity of the occupiers of adjoining buildings are protected; and proposals do not result in direct overlooking of private outdoor space.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans as this provides certainty.

Whilst the submitted drawings indicate the proposed materials for the external walls of the extension, no information is provided regarding the proposed roofing materials or the construction of the proposed terrace. I have therefore imposed a condition to require full details of the proposed materials to be submitted to and approved by the Council prior to the carrying out of development above ground level.

The proposal would maintain the character and appearance of the area and would not cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The proposal would accord with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is allowed.