Appeal 6003577

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ground floor rear extension and change the garage door to a window. at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/HSE/25/00329, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of the decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, including the materials specified thereon, drawing Nos: 01, 02, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11.

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 main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; • the living conditions of the occupiers of 69 [name] with particular regard to outlook and sunlight; and • highway safety, with particular regard to parking provision.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling within a cul-de-sac of similar detached homes. While the area has a consistent residential character, there is some variation in building form and architectural detailing, including differing roof styles and pitches.

The proposed rear extension would incorporate a flat roof, with part of the existing pitched roof of the garage removed. While this would alter the existing roof form of the garage, the change would not be visible from the front of the appeal property. It would be visible in views from [address] when approaching the cul-de-sac, however, these views would be largely filtered by intervening boundary walls, fences and vegetation, resulting in limited visibility. Given the varied roofscape and subservient scale of the proposal, the proposed alteration would sit comfortably within this context. Consequently, the proposed development would take into account local character and patterns of development.

The rear extension would be confined to the rear of the site and little would be visible from [address] due to its height. The replacement of the garage door with a window would not appear out of place, as the window would match the existing in style and proportions.

Accordingly, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and therefore complies with Policy PL1 of the Harlow Local Development Plan 2020 (Local Plan) which requires development to achieve a high standard of design. It would also comply with the aims of the Harlow Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2011) (SPD) and [name] (2021) which, among other things, advise that extensions should remain subservient to the original dwelling.

The existing outlook from the rear ground and first floor windows of No 69 is primarily across its wide rear garden and is restricted by the outbuildings located at the rear and side of its plot. From the rear garden of No 69, outlook towards the appeal property is filtered by the boundary treatment, as well as the outbuilding and conservatory within the garden of No 69. The proposal would introduce additional built form along the shared boundary, which would be partly visible above the fence. However, given the existing level of screening provided by the outbuilding and conservatory, the change would be modest in context and would not appear overbearing or result in a harmful reduction in outlook.

The proposed rear extension would introduce some additional shading along the shared boundary with No 69 during the early part of the day. However, the existing garage at the appeal property and the outbuilding at No 69 already restrict direct sunlight in this area. Any reduction in light from the proposal would also be limited due to the low height of the proposed extension and the incorporation of the garage roof cut-out. Given the south-facing orientation of the rear garden at No 69, it would continue to receive good levels of sunlight throughout the day. Consequently, any reduction in light would be minor and would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 69.

Accordingly, the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 69 [name] with regard to outlook and light. The proposal therefore complies with Policy PL2 of the Local Plan which supports development that preserves the level of amenity of neighbours. It would also comply with the aims of the SPD and the [name] which suggests that the effect on visual amenity for neighbours should be minimised.

The Council’s parking standards require dwellings with two or more bedrooms to have a minimum of two parking spaces. The proposal would increase the number of bedrooms to four. However, this does not result in any additional parking requirement under the standards.

The evidence before me demonstrates that the garage is too small to accommodate a car, and therefore its conversion to a bedroom would not result in a loss of parking. During the site visit, I observed no evidence of parking stress within the immediate area. Therefore, even if the proposal were to lead to an additional car parking on surrounding roads, it has not been demonstrated that this would have an adverse impact on parking in the locality or give rise to highway safety concerns.

For these reasons, the proposed development would not harm highway safety, with particular regard to parking. Therefore, it would not conflict with Policies IN2 & IN3 of the Local Plan which together require development not to cause a detrimental impact on the safety of all highway users and be in accordance with the [name].

I recommend conditions in relation to commencement of development and requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans, in the interests of certainty. Matching external materials are necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area, however as this is specified on the plans, a separate condition is not necessary.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.

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