Appeal 6003135

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a ground floor side extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01613/HOU, and the plans submitted with it, 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 documents: Proposed Block Plan, [name]. 2504-0179-05 [name] and Section, [name]. 2504-0179-04 [name], [name]. 2504-0179-03

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

At appeal stage the appellant submitted amended existing plans. These are in response to the Council’s second reason for refusal, which relate to concerns regarding the accuracy of the submitted existing plans. In particular, the originally submitted rear elevation plan showed sliding patio doors and a three-pane single window, however submitted photos showed outward opening patio doors and a four-pane single window. The amended existing plans accurately depict the fenestration on the rear elevation of the dwelling.

The Council consider that accepting the amended existing plan would run contrary The Planning Practice Guidance which advises that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. However, the amended plan does not evolve the scheme, but rather clarifies what is existing on site. The Council similarly accept that the amended plan would not constitute a change to the proposed scheme. In this regard, it does not result in a substantial change to the application. I am therefore satisfied that accepting them would not prejudice the Council, consultees or interested parties and I have considered them in my decision.

An interested party has set out that the dormer, which is shown to be tiled on both the existing and proposed plans, is not tiled but instead rendered. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the plans before me.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey dwelling. The property benefits from parking to the frontage and a generous garden to the rear. The surrounding area is characterised by detached and semi-detached dwellings. Whilst there is some variation in the size and style of dwellings, catslide roofs are a common feature within the area. Many properties benefit from integral garages and extend across the entire width of their plots, whereas others have detached garages and gaps between the side elevation of the property and site boundary.

The Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which does not constitute planning policy, but is instead guidance to assist in the application of the planning policy, sets out that side extensions should normally be set back from the front wall by at least 500 millimetres. The proposed side extension would sit flush with the existing front wall, and therefore not meet this guidance. Notwithstanding this, the proposed extension would be of minimal width, projecting out towards the side boundary of the site. It would extend along the existing side elevation of the dwelling, towards the existing single storey rear extension. A gap between the side elevation of the extension and side boundary of the site would be maintained. In this regard, the extension would be proportionate to the main dwelling and site. It would not appear out of keeping with surrounding development, where there is variation in the amount of overall plot coverage.

The roof line of the extension would sit below the eaves of the catslide roof. As a result of its modest scale, in particular its width and height, the extension would remain subservient and relate well to the main dwelling. It would not appear visually dominate or detract from the legibility of the existing property, in particular the cat slide roof.

For the reasons set out above, although the scheme would not comply with the guidance set out in the SPD, I do not find there to be harm in this regard. A departure from the guidance within the SPD is therefore justified in this case.

I conclude that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. The scheme would therefore be in accordance with Policy DM10 of the Royal Borough of [site address] [name] (CS) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (LP). Collectively, amongst other matters, these policies seek to ensure high quality design that responds positively to the character of the area.

As mentioned, the Council’s second refusal reason relates to concerns regarding the accuracy of the submitted existing plans. It alleged that in this regard, the scheme would fail to comply with Policies CS8 and DM10 of the CS and Policy D3 of the LP. As noted, amended plans that accurately depict the existing rear elevation have been submitted. I do not find there to be any harm, or conflict with policy in this regard.

The existing rear extension is clearly shown on the submitted block plan, as well as the existing and proposed floor plans and elevations. All submitted plans are scaled drawings.

No concerns have been raised by the Council regarding access to the rear garden, or the effect of the scheme on neighbouring amenity. I see no reason to disagree with this. There is limited substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposed works would result in damage to a drain. Given the small scale of the development, I am not satisfied that a construction management plan would be necessary as any disruption would likely be limited and short lived. Concerns are raised regarding the effect of the development on property values. However, planning is concerned with land use in the public interest, whereas effect on property values is a purely private interest.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have used a condition to specify the approved plans and documents, including the fire safety statement, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. A condition to control the external materials of the development is also necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed.