Appeal 3352672

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of part two storey and part single storey side and rear extensions at [site address] , [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 24/01273/HOU, subject to the following conditions:

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

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall accord with the materials set out on the application forms and on the approved plans.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: P01, P02, P03 [name], P04 [name], P05 [name], P103 [name], P104, P105 [name], Location Plan.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the submitted [name].

I have noted that the Council amended the description of development to refer to ‘extension’ in the singular rather than ‘extensions’ as set out on the application forms. I do not consider that the amendment is necessary, and I am satisfied that the Appellants’ original description of development is accurate and have continued to use this in the decision.

There appear to be a discrepancy between the revision number for Plan P103 as recorded on the plan list and as shown on the submitted plan. I have referenced the revision number as shown on the submitted plan.

The main issues in this appeal are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing property and on the street scene, and • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbours of surrounding properties, with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal property is an end of terrace two storey dwelling on the north-western side of [address], and the flank elevation faces onto [address] as it turns towards [address]. It is situated in a predominantly residential area with a mix of properties. There are two existing single storey side extensions at the appeal property, the one towards the front has a hipped roof and the one to the rear a flat roof and both have different eaves height.

The proposal would seek to replace the flat roof single storey extension with a two storey side extension to the rear of the single storey extension. The extension would wrap around part way to the rear of the dwelling over a single storey rear extension the depth of the extended property. The single storey extension to the rear would be slightly deeper than the rear extension to the immediately adjoining property.

Although there would be a number of elements, the two storey extension would have a hipped roof which would step up from the remaining single storey side extension but would remain subordinate in height and scale to the main roof over the dwelling. There would be a part crown roof to the single storey rear extension, set behind a pitched roof surround.

Within the street scene, and particularly from the front and the side, I consider that the various elements would relate well together in terms of their scale and heights and would be seen as subordinate additions to the main house. The side extension would extend almost to the boundary line, but development over one and two storeys directly adjoining the street would not be out of character in the local area, given the presence of similar forms of development in the immediate vicinity. The reduced height in relation to the height of the main roof of the existing property would further assist so that the two storey side extension would not appear over dominant in the street scene.

I am therefore satisfied that the proposed extensions would respect the character and appearance of the existing property and of the street scene. There would be no conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 (London Plan) and Policies CS8 and DM10 of the Council’s Core Strategy 2012 ([name]) as well as the Framework, and in particular Section 12, all of which, amongst other matters, seek a high quality of design which respects the local context.

Given the siting of the appeal property at the eastern end of [address] at the junction with [address] and [address], there is only one property facing on to the side of the appeal property at No [address]. However, the proposed side extension, given its siting towards the rear would not be directly opposite that dwelling. Given the distance between No 77 as well as the detailed siting of the proposed side extension, I am satisfied that the proposal would not be overbearing and as a result would not harm the outlook for the neighbours at No 77.

The adjoining neighbours to the west benefit from a single storey extension of similar depth to the one proposed at the appeal property. The two storey extension would be sited away from the boundary between the two properties and I am satisfied that the living conditions of these neighbours would not be harmed as a result of the proposal, with particular regard to outlook.

I am therefore satisfied that the proposed extensions would not materially harm the living conditions of the nearby neighbours, with particular regard to loss of outlook. There would be no conflict with Policy D3 of the London Plan, Policies CS8 and DM10 of the [name] and the Framework, and in particular paragraph 135 f) all of which, amongst other things, seek for development to respect the amenities of existing and future occupiers.

The Council’s second reason for refusal also refers to an overbearing impact and increased sense of enclosure on the application site itself. The basis for this concern is not articulated by the Council. However, given the siting of the two storey development partly to the side of the property and with appropriate garden space remaining, I do not consider that the amenities of the residents of the appeal site would be adversely impacted by the proposed development. There would be no conflict with the development plan policies already referenced.

In terms of conditions, the materials should accord with those set out on the approved plans and the application forms to respect the character and appearance of the existing property and of the local area, and the approved plans should be listed for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of good planning. I shall also add a condition to require compliance with the submitted [name] in the interests of fire safety.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that this appeal should be allowed.