Appeal 6004714

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the proposed single storey rear extension and planning permission is refused for this aspect of the proposals. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the rear dormer and internal configuration and planning permission is granted for these aspects of the proposals at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref PA25/3502, and the plans submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the conditions set out in the schedule.

The original application was refused permission for 4 reasons. The Council had alleged in reasons for refusal 3 & 4 respectively that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not detrimentally affect: (a) the living conditions of neighbours at [address] by reason of the impact on daylight and sunlight, and (b) the health and longevity of nearby trees.

The appellant produced a Daylight and Sunlight and Arboricultural reports for the appeal. The Council was given the opportunity to comment on both reports. In its response the Council accepted that the reports suitably addressed reasons for refusal 3 & 4. However, an objection was made by the occupants of [address] as to the alleged impact of the proposal, and this is reflected in the main issue identified below. Arrangements had been made for me to visit [address] as part of my inspection of the appeal site and surroundings.

A Right of Light report was also submitted at appeal stage but as explained in that report ‘..A right of light is a civil matter between neighbours and is independent of the planning system.’ I agree; accordingly, I have not taken this report into account.

The appeal property is designated as a Building of [name] by the Council and therefore falls to be considered as a Heritage Asset as defined in the Framework1. Nevertheless, such local designation does not prevent the owner carrying out certain forms of permitted development, that is, development not requiring the Council’s previous permission.

In this regard I note that since the date of the refusal leading to this appeal the appellant has obtained a Certificate of Lawfulness in respect of the rear dormer. The proposed dormer subject of the Certificate and appeal respectively appear strikingly similar if not identical. This is a significant fall-back to which I attach great weight, since in effect, the appellant has already received planning permission for the dormer.

For the reasons set out in the officer report, the Council does not object to the design of the proposed single storey rear extension in terms of its appearance and effect on the character and appearance of the building and its surroundings. Judging from my site visit I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s view on this aspect.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed single storey rear extension on the living conditions of the residents of [address] with reference to sunlight, daylight and visual impact.

The parts of No 22 most susceptible to harm arising from the effects of the proposal on sunlight and daylight are the internal spaces within the rear ground floor and the patio area serving the dwelling. The rear ground floor space within No 22 is open plan, being a combined sitting/dining and kitchen area. The internal environment was light and airy during my visit, not least because it was a sunny morning.

Bearing in mind that the proposed extension would replace another, that it projects further into the garden than before, and that the proposed roofing material is different, I consider the report produced by the appellant in respect of daylight and sunlight to have been professionally undertaken in accord with normally accepted practice. The report and my own visual assessment, having full regard to the sun’s usual daily pathway and current BRE advised standards2, satisfies me that the impact on sunlight and daylight affecting No 22’s internal environment and its patio area would be slight and not unacceptable. Accordingly, I do not consider that the proposed single storey extension would harm the residents of No 22 by reason of unacceptable loss of sunlight or daylight.

From within No 22, its patio and garden the existing single storey structure to be replaced is perceived as a lightweight structure on account of its glazed upper panels and largely glazed roof structure. I note the proposed re-use of glazed panels above brickwork on the elevation facing No 22. Whilst understanding the design reasons for the proposed use of solid roof cladding panels, these would alter the current perception of lightness, particularly when combined with the proposed elongation of the extension into the garden. Since the structure would 1 National Planning Policy Framework. 2 Building Research Establishment stand virtually on the common boundary shared by Nos 20 and 22, I consider that the development would appear visually intrusive, dominating and oppressive when viewed from those parts of No 22’s garden and patio closest to it, and from its rear ground floor windows.

I conclude that the proposed single storey extension would have an adverse and unacceptable effect on the living conditions currently enjoyed by No 22’s residents on account of its harmful visual impact. Accordingly, a conflict arises with those provisions of policy 46 of the Richmond upon Thames Local Plan requiring new development to protect the amenity and living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties and to ensure that proposals are not visually intrusive or have an overbearing impact.

I find the appeal proposals to be acceptable in part, but unacceptable in other respects. I have considered issuing a split decision and find that I can do so since the various elements appear to be clearly severable. In the light of the Certificate already granted, the proposed dormer, irrespective of the Council’s view on merits, may be built without a formal planning permission.

Permission is therefore granted for the dormer element of the scheme. It is necessary to impose a condition identifying the approved plans in the interests of certainty. However, for the reasons already provided the appeal in respect of the rear single storey extension is dismissed.

I have considered all other matters raised in the representations including the references to the Framework and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document for [name] and [name]. I have also considered the representations made by the residents of No 22, the adjoining property. Regarding their comments on the accuracy of the plans, I found them, as did the Council, to be clear as to the appellant’s intentions, and I found no difficulty in fully understanding the proposals. No other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations leading to my conclusions.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans in so far as they relate to the rear dormer and internal reconfiguration : 2.20.TED.E.01; 2.20.TED.E.02; 2.20.TED.E.03; 2.20.TED.E.04; 2.20.TED.E.10; 2.20.TED.E.11; 2.20.TED.E.12; 2.20.TED.E.13; 2.20.TED.P.01; 2.20.TED.P.02; 2.20.TED.P.03; 2.20.TED.P.03; 2.20.TED.P.10; 2.20.TED.P.11; 2.20.TED.P.12; 2.20.TED.P.13; 2.20.TED.S.01 & 2.20.TED.S.02.