Appeal 6001894

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of outbuilding and erection of part three storey/part single storey side extension to provide 1no. two bedroom house with off street parking at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00855/FUL, 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 drawing nos 2517/01 [name] and [name], 2517/02 [name] and [name], 2517/03 [name], 2517/04 A Existing Block Plan, 2517/06 A Proposed Ground and [name], 2517/07 A Proposed Second Floor and [name], 2517/08 [name], 2517/10 A Proposed Site Plan, 2517/11 A Proposed Block Plan, 2517/12 A Proposed Floor Plans, 2517/13 A Proposed Section and 2517/20 Site Location Plan.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan no. 2517/08 [name] and specified on the application form.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted [name]. The specified fire safety measures shall be provided prior to occupation of the development and retained thereafter.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the development comprises demolition of outbuilding and erection of part three storey/part single storey side extension to provide 1no. two bedroom house with off street parking. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I.

Planning permission for the erection of a hip-to-gable and rear dormer roof extension and a part single part 2-storey side extension to the existing dwelling has previously been granted (reference 23/01576/HOU). I observed on site that the approved hip-to-gable and rear dormer extension have been constructed.

The Council does not object to the erection of a new dwelling on the site in principle. From the information before me and my observations on site, I see no reason to disagree with this finding.

The appellant has submitted a revised plan as part of the appeal process, amending the elevational treatment of the existing property. While the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme, the revised plan would not change the proposal subject of the original application. The revised plan is consistent with the elevational treatment I observed on site. In this context, and given that interested parties have had the opportunity to comment on the revised plan, I do not consider that the Council or other parties would be prejudiced by my acceptance of the revised plan. I have, therefore, had regard to it in determining the appeal.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area; and • whether the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to floor-to-ceiling heights.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling. It is located within an area which is residential in character, predominantly comprising semi-detached properties. I observed on site that there is a broad uniformity to the scale, form and design of the surrounding built form. Notwithstanding this, some properties have been altered and extended, including through rear dormer extensions.

The appeal proposal is the erection of a new dwelling adjoining the existing property. The dwelling would be part single and part 3 storeys in height. The form and massing of the dwelling would reflect that of the appeal property whilst, as a result of being set back from the front of the appeal property and set down in height, appearing subservient to the existing building.

The proposed development includes a rear dormer which would not be set down from the ridge height and would only be inset from one side of the roof. The Council has raised concerns that, as a result, it would appear overly bulky and discordant.

However, the proposed dormer would relate well to the existing built form at the property, including the existing rear dormer. As such, it would not appear overly bulky or incongruous. Moreover, the dormer would, by reason of its location at the rear of the dwelling and the siting of the property, not be overly prominent within the street scene.

I acknowledge that there are a limited number of rear dormers within the surrounding area. Nevertheless, I have reasoned above why I have not identified any harm arising from the proposed development. The limited number of rear dormers in the surrounding area does not, ultimately, alter this.

Consequently, overall, I find that the proposed development would relate well to the appeal property as well as its surroundings. It would not appear incongruous or at odds with the prevailing pattern and form of development in the surrounding area.

In coming to my conclusions, I have taken account of the approved side extension at the appeal property, which represents the fallback position. [name] do not have full details of approved extension, from the information before me it is evident that the siting, massing and scale of built form is broadly consistent with the appeal proposal. From the plans before me, the proposed rear dormer would be the main addition to the built form compared to the approved scheme.

Having regard to this, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not result in additional harm to the character and appearance of the host building or surrounding area compared to the approved scheme. This matter attracts significant weight in favour of the proposal.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area. As such, it would accord with the relevant provisions of Policies CS8 and DM10 of the Royal Borough of [site address] Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2012 ([name]). Among other matters, these policies seek development which relates well and connects to its surroundings, respects, maintains or enhances the prevailing development typology.

Refusal reason 2 on the Council’s Decision Notice also refers to Policy DM12 of the [name]. However, this policy relates to matters of heritage which are not in dispute between the parties. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy DM12 in relation to this main issue.

Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 requires that the minimum floor-to-ceiling height of dwellings is 2.5m for at least 75% of the Gross Internal Area. The proposed development would provide a dwelling with a floor-to-ceiling of 2.4m. As such, the proposed development would not accord with the requirement set out in Policy D6.

However, the proposed floor-to-ceiling height is only marginally less than the requirement. It would exceed the relevant technical housing standard.

Furthermore, the proposed floor-to-ceiling height is consistent with that of the existing building. The information before me does not suggest that the existing building does not provide adequate living conditions for occupiers.

The appellant has put to me that increasing the floor-to-ceiling height would require the enlargement of the proposed dwelling, such that it would be larger than the existing building to which it would be attached, or a reduction in the depth of the plenum, which would reduce the energy efficiency of the proposed dwelling. I see no reason to disagree with these findings. Moreover, I find that neither outcome would be desirable.

There is no dispute between the Council and the appellant that the proposed dwelling, which would have windows on three aspects, would provide an adequate amount of natural light and ventilation.

In this context, I satisfied that, in this case, the minor deviation from the floor-to-ceiling height requirement set out within Policy D6 is justified.

Taking account of the above, the proposed development would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to floor-to-ceiling heights. In this regard, it accords with the relevant provisions of Policy DM10 of the [name] and, whilst not adhering to the specific quantitative requirement, Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021. These policies, among other matters, seek development which has regard to the amenities of occupants and provides adequately sized-rooms with comfortable and functional layouts which are fit for purpose and meet with the needs of Londoners.

Within the Council’s Officer Report, reference is made to 2 parking spaces being provided as part of the proposed development. However, the plans before me demonstrate that a single parking space is proposed, consistent with the relevant parking standards.

Notwithstanding concerns raised by neighbours regarding the effect of the proposal on parking and congestion issues, I am satisfied that, with the provision of this parking space, the proposed development would not have an unacceptable effect on highway safety. I note that the Council did not raise concerns on this matter either.

Given the form and siting of the proposed development, extending no greater in height or deeper than the existing property, I am satisfied that, even though limited details are provided regarding the screening of the garden space, the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with regard to daylight, outlook or privacy. I note that the Council did not raise any concerns in this regard either.

Representations from neighbours comment upon the potential for the proposal to set a precedent for additional development in [address]. However, any future proposals would be assessed on the basis of their own individual circumstances, as I have done with this appeal. This matter does not, therefore, lead me to an alternative conclusion on the main issues.

I acknowledge that the construction of the proposed development would result in noise and disturbance to neighbouring occupiers during construction. I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 and appreciate that in allowing the appeal individuals would be subject to additional noise and disturbance during construction, having the potential to disproportionally affect them. However, the proposed development is of a modest scale and construction activity would, consequently, be time limited. In this regard, I do not consider that these personal circumstances provide sufficient justification to depart from my conclusion on the main issues.

To meet legislative requirements, I have imposed a condition to address the period for commencement. Conditions requiring compliance with the submitted plans and [name] are also necessary for reasons of certainty.

A further condition requiring the materials to be in accordance with those specified on the application form and shown on the submitted plans is necessary in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above, the proposed development complies with the development plan as a whole. As there are no material considerations which would justify determining the proposal other than in accordance with the development plan, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.