Appeal 3346726

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for ‘Erection of a single storey front and rear extension, removal of chimney stack’ at [site address] , [site address] [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/00561/HOU, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and details: drawing nos TSL/PAM/EXT/01 (Plan), TSL/PAM/EXT/02 ([name]), TSL/PAM/EXT/04 ([name]), TSL/PAM/EXT/06 (Proposed Block Plan), Location Plan Scale 1:1250 and the ‘[name].

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on drawing no. TSL/PAM/EXT/04 ([name]) and on the application form.

The flat roof areas of development hereby permitted shall not be used as a roof garden, balcony, seating area or other similar amenity area, and shall not be accessed except for the purpose of maintenance or in the case of emergency.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The development description in the banner heading above is taken from the application form. This is different to the description on the decision notice and appeal form, which refers to changes to the ground floor side fenestrations. I have no evidence that this change was agreed with the applicant. I have https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/Z5630/D/24/3346726 therefore made my recommendation on the basis of the development applied for as described on the application form.

The reasons for refusal on the decision notice refer to specific elements of the proposed development in respect of the Council’s concerns relating to character and appearance and neighbouring living conditions. I have defined the main issues on this basis.

The main issues are the effect of: i) the single storey front extension on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; and ii) the single storey rear extension on the living conditions of occupiers of No [address], with particular regard to outlook.

The site is located within a predominantly residential area which has a mix of mostly terraced and semi-detached dwellings. The appeal dwelling sits at one end of a terrace which is setback from the street behind spacious front gardens where the ground level falls away from the street towards the dwellings. It is also setback from the front building line of the adjacent dwellings at either side of the terrace. The terrace is of a coherent design overall with hipped roofs at the ends, projecting hipped roof sections to the front and white rendered elevations.

Whilst the single-storey front extension would project forward of the host property, the scale and design of the extension would be similar to the front extension at [address] (No 42) which sits at the opposite end of the terrace. The position set back from and at a slightly lower level to the street, set back from the front projection of the dwelling at [address], together with the matching render proposed would further assimilate the front extension into its surroundings. As a result, the front extension would not be overly prominent and would appear as a proportionate addition which would also have a balancing effect on the wider terrace.

I conclude, the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore comply with Policy D3 (Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach) of The London Plan (2021) (LP) and Policies CS8 (Character, Design and Heritage) and DM10 ([name] for [name] (including [name])) of the Royal Borough of [name] (2012) (KCS), which require that development proposals are of a good design, respond to the existing character of a place, relate well and connect to their surroundings, and respect the scale, layout, height, form and massing within the area.

The single-storey rear extension would be sited along the boundary with [address] (No 46). However, the French door to the ground floor rear elevation of No 46 is set away from the boundary with the appeal dwelling. Furthermore, due to the ample width of the rear elevation and the spacious https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/Z5630/D/24/3346726 rear garden at No 46, the French door has a wide aspect over the garden. Whilst there was no boundary fence between the properties at the time of my site visit, the flat roof of the single storey rear extension would not project significantly above a typical boundary fence. Therefore, despite the siting of the single storey rear extension along the boundary, an acceptable level of outlook would be retained by occupiers of No 46.

Furthermore, the Council have confirmed that planning permission has recently been granted for development, including a single-storey rear extension, at the appeal property (Application Ref 24/01353/HOU). The approved extension is of similar design to the appeal scheme but has a depth of 3.5 metre (m), as opposed to the 4m depth of the appeal scheme. While the depth of the proposed rear extension would slightly exceed the 3.5m depth guidance in the Council’s Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document (2013), I do not consider that the additional 0.5m proposed in this appeal would have a materially different relationship with outlook for No 46 when compared with the existing planning permission. The approved scheme is a realistic fallback position to which I attach considerable weight, and which further persuades me that the relationship with the outlook of No 46 would be acceptable.

I conclude, the single-storey rear extension would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook. The proposal would therefore comply with Policy D3 (Optimising site capacity through the design-led approach) of the LP and Policy DM10 ([name] for [name] (including [name])) of the KCS, which state that development proposals should have regard to the amenities of occupants and neighbours and should deliver appropriate outlook and amenity.

The Council also state that this element of the scheme would conflict with Policy CS8 (Character, Design and Heritage) of the KCS. However, this policy does not relate to living conditions and has not therefore been decisive to my findings on this main issue.

The Council’s Officer Report states that the removal of the side chimney stack would have an adverse effect on the street scene and would detract from the architectural quality of the area. This element of the proposal was not included in the reasons for refusal on the decision notice. In any case, from my own observations on site, given its set back position to the side of the host dwelling, the chimney stack is not a highly prominent feature, and its removal would not have a significant effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the wider terrace. Therefore, the removal of the chimney stack would not on its own warrant dismissal of the appeal having regard to my findings in respect of the main issues.

I have had regard of the Council’s suggested conditions. I have included the time limit and approved plans conditions in the interests of certainty and clarity. I have included the materials condition in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the area. The suggested condition restricting the use of the flat roofs on the extensions is also reasonable in the interests of protecting the privacy of neighbours and, in respect of the roof on the front https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate - APP/Z5630/D/24/3346726 extension, the character of the street scene. I have not included a separate condition in respect of the [name] as this is already listed amongst the approved drawings and details, that the development must be carried out in accordance with, under condition 2. Its inclusion amongst the approved details is reasonable and necessary to meet the fire safety requirements of Policy D12 of the LP.

For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed since it would comply with the development plan.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.