Appeal 3278176

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development is taken from the decision notice and appeal form. In my view this more clearly and concisely describes the development.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, 11 Firdene (no.11), with particular reference to outlook and light.

[site address] (no.13) is a mid-terrace property, to the rear it has an approximately 2.5m single storey projection and an open wooden structure with a corrugated plastic roof.

The neighbouring property, no.15 has a rear extension which extends across the full width of the property and has a depth of approximately 6m. The proposal would replicate this form extending up to the shared boundary with no.11. No.11 has not been extended to the rear and therefore the proposed extension would create a significant depth of wall close to the ground floor window. Whilst currently there will be some limited restriction in outlook given the existing projection, the combination of the height and additional depth of the proposed extension would be very imposing for the neighbour.

In my view, the development would significantly impinge on the outlook quality, particularly as the terrace properties in Firdene have a limited width. As such the scale and proximity of the extension would have an enclosing and overbearing impact. Additionally, the appeal property is located to the southeast of no.11 and therefore the extension will restrict sunlight reaching the rear of the property.

I acknowledge that the extension would be similar to that at no.15. However, that is an end of terrace property and there are no details of the planning background to that extension before me. The depth of the proposed extension substantially exceeds the guidance in the Council’s Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which indicates that single storey extension should generally not normally exceed 3-3.5m. Whilst an extension would improve the overall quality of living space at no.13, this does not outweigh the harm I have found.

In conclusion the depth and proximity of the proposed extension to no.11 would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers. It is therefore contrary to amenity protection aims of Royal Borough of Kingston upon [name] 2012 (CS) policy DM10, London Plan policy D3 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Council in their decision notice have also referred to CS policy DM12. This relates to conservation areas and therefore is not directly relevant to the appeal site. The Council accept, and I agree, that the design of the extension is appropriate for the property and would not have an adverse impact on the character of the area, therefore, I do not find conflict with CS policy CS8 which is also cited.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.