Appeal 6007928

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of the proposed development from the planning application form but have limited it to solely reflect the act of development.

The main issues raised by this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: - a) The living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at No. [address]; and b) The character and appearance of the host property and the street scene.

[address] Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) notes that generally an extension of 4m in depth for a detached property will be acceptable. It also advises that where a proposed extension seeks a larger depth, the eaves should be reduced to 2.2m at the shared boundary. However, this latter requirement appears to relate to infill extension to Victorian properties, which the proposal does not.

The rear extension would extend approximately 5m in distance from the rear of the host dwelling and would be of a greater depth than that advocated by the SPD for a detached property. It would be of a height that would be clearly visible above the common boundary and be within close proximity to the side boundary of the site. No.32A has two conservatory style structures at the rear, one in close proximity to the common boundary with the appeal site that has outlook toward the proposed development. Although the nearest conservatory is the smaller of the two, it is a habitable living space relating to that property.

The occupiers of neighbouring properties should reasonably expect to enjoy an acceptable outlook as part of their residential lives. The rear extension would be clearly visible in outlook in close proximity from the conservatory at No.32A. The proposal would appear dominant in outlook and the overbearing impact of the extension in such close proximity to the adjoining property would create a sense of enclosure. This would diminish the enjoyment of the residential living environment for the neighbouring occupiers that they should reasonably expect to enjoy. This would be so despite the habitable living space not being a large space in itself and it also having outlook towards its rear garden.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at No. [address]. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policy 46 of the London Borough of [site address] Local Plan and the SPD. That policy seeks, amongst other matters, development to protect the amenity and living conditions for occupiers of new, existing, adjoining and neighbouring properties. The SPD resists extensions that would create an unacceptable sense of enclosure or appear overbearing when seen from neighbouring gardens or rooms, as a result of height, footprint or proximity. I have found that the proposal would be harmful for the above reasons and this brings the proposed development into conflict with the SPD.

I saw that [address] comprises a variety of styles of dwellings of differing sizes, designs and materials. Indeed, the photographs provided by the appellant illustrate this. There are other large properties in the area, whether by original design or as a result of enlargements or replacement.

The proposal would significantly alter the appearance of the property and increase its overall size. The existing dwelling is modest in size when compared to some of the other properties in the locality. In terms of the resulting size of the proposal, it would not appear at odds with that of other properties in the area. Its height and width would reflect that of neighbouring dwellings and others within the wider street scene. Whilst the pair of gable front bays may be narrower than that of other properties in the area, there are examples of this style of frontage façade in the environs that include pitched roofs to the bays. Centralised entrances are prevalent and form part of the existing street scene, as do small front roof dormers to which the proposal would be of similar size.

With regard to the crown roof design, the flat roof element would not be readily visible in views from the street scene. It is accepted that the width of the side extension would be modestly wider than that advocated by the Council’s adopted SPD. Nonetheless, this, along with the lack of setback of the side extension, would create a design that would visually reflect the character and appearance of other properties within the area. As such, the proposal would not be out of keeping such that would, in this case, justify full compliance with the SPD. Notwithstanding the living conditions considerations above, whilst not compliant with the measurements advocated by the SPD, the single storey rear extension would be of a size that would not visually overwhelm the appearance of the rear of the dwelling and, being single storey, would be subservient to it.

Taking all elements of the proposal together, I find that the proposal would represent a well-balanced design and that its increase in size, along with its design and form, would assimilate with the street scene.

The local planning authority’s officer report makes reference to an Inspector’s decision and highlights that consideration was given in that appeal to the amount of development that would take place was akin to a new dwelling rather than one that was an enlargement of a dwelling. I accept that the proposal would significantly alter the appearance of the property and increase its overall size. Nonetheless, a significant amount of the existing dwelling would remain, therefore I do not consider the proposal would be akin to a development for a new dwelling in this case.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host property or the street scene. As such, the proposed development would comply with Policy 28 of the London Borough of [site address] Local Plan and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. That policy seeks, amongst other matters, development to be of high architectural and urban design quality and relate to the context of the character and appearance of the local area. Although not fully according with the [name] have found, for the above reasons, the proposal to be acceptable in this particular case.

[name] have found in favour of the appellant in terms of the second main issue, this does not overcome the identified harm in relation to the first main issue.

Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.