Appeal 6006142

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single-storey rear extension and conversion of garage to provide annexed accommodation with associated external work at [site address] , Sutton, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DM2025/01564, subject to the following conditions:

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 approved plans: Site Location Plan at scale 1:1250 and [name] 28OA- 100, 28OA-101, 28OA-102, 28OA-103 and 28OA-104.

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.

My formal decision uses the description of development which was given on the Council’s decision notice. This gives a better understanding of the works proposed compared with that given on the original application form, and which I have quoted in the banner heading above.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the host property and wider area.

The appeal relates to a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling with an original pronounced cat-slide roof to the side. It sits within a residential road of similar aged and styled properties but where much of the symmetry between semi-detached pairs has been lost through a variety of side extensions over the years. No 28 is no exception with a large side dormer extension at first-floor level which projects at two-storey beyond the dwelling’s original rear elevation and with a single-storey infill to the side up to the shared boundary with No 26, which itself has also been extended at single-storey to an equivalent depth.

The appeal property is set away from the plot’s side boundary with No 30 by the width of a vehicular access leading to a gable fronted garage set within the rear garden and which is attached to and mirrored by a similar size and positioned garage at No 30. The proposal would add a further ‘L-shaped’ approximate 2.4m deep single-storey extension to the rear across the width of the dwelling with a side projection across part of the drive and which would extend marginally deeper at this point to create an internal link with the garage. This in turn would be converted into ancillary living space as an extension to the house.

Although the proposal would result in a marked increase overall to the habitable floorspace of the dwelling, the extension itself would be modest, adding little in terms of building size or mass to the existing. The majority of the extra floorspace would be contained within the envelope and footprint of the existing garage; the visual presence of which would be largely unaltered apart from some external changes, these mostly confined to its flank wall facing internally within the garden to No 28. The front elevation of the garage is already partly obscured from view along [address] by the forward siting and overlapping position of the dwelling. The side projecting element of the proposed extension would further partly mask sight of the garage, but not to any degree that would be significant, or which would appear prominent within the street scene due to its deeply recessed position and subordinate size.

During my visit I observed there to be an existing link between the inside flank wall of the garage and the flank wall of the dwelling by way of an approximate 2m high dog-leg wall including a gated entrance to the rear garden. The proposal would merely replicate this but in a different fashion. My impression overall is that, whilst different in function, the garage would retain its appearance within its wider setting as an original structure set close and physically linked to the dwelling. I find nothing about the new arrangement that would give the impression of a disproportionately deep extension, or one which would appear harmful to the character or appearance of No 28 or the wider area. For this reason I find no conflict with the aims or objectives of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document Design of [name], adopted in 2006, or with Policy 28 of the Sutton Local Plan 2016-2031, adopted in 2018, as far as it requires new development to display a standard of design which, amongst other things, respects local context and character. For the same reasons I find no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s policy requirements for achieving well-designed places.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. A further condition is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in materials to match the existing in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed.