Case No. UKUT-0172-(LC)-UTLC-Case-Number:-LC-2020-33

24.In his written evidence, submitted with the application in November 2020, Mr Naidu explains that he and his wife have lived at the Property since purchasing it on 20 April 2009. They have children aged (at that time) 11 and 16 and wish to extend their property to provide more independent space for them and a comfortable working environment for the family. Both Mr and Mrs Naidu are able to work from home in their current employments and wish to have the flexibility to do so if they became self-employed people running their own businesses.25.Mr Metcalfe’s planning statement was submitted as written evidence of his expert opinion on the applicants’ proposals, and their application to the Tribunal, from a planning perspective. He had visited the Property on 15 February 2022. Regarding the restriction preventing use for business purposes, it is his opinion that a change of use of the Property from Class C3 (residential) to Class B2/B3 or E(c), to allow it to be used exclusively for some form of business purpose and not as a dwelling, would not be appropriate in the residential area and would be unlikely to gain planning permission. However, working from home or running a business from the property where the primary function remained as a private residential property would not be ‘development’ as defined in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and would be considered appropriate in a residential area.26.Mr Metcalfe reviewed the planning history of the Property, which was constructed following grant of planning permission for the terrace of three houses in 1987. Permission was granted subject to eight conditions but permitted development rights were not removed. Mr Metcalfe concludes that had the Council been concerned that permitted development could result in detriment to the Property, the amenity of neighbours or the character of the area they would have removed permitted development rights. In December 2001 an application for permission to erect a detached garage at the Property was refused, and an appeal against the decision was dismissed in September 2002. In his decision the inspector identified that the open area beside No. 52 made “…a significant contribution to the open character of the area, being located in a prominent position between the two terraces and almost a focal point of the estate as three roads meet.” He also stated that it would “…appear particularly intrusive because it would extend beyond the building line of the adjacent terrace.” Mr Metcalfe distinguishes the current proposal because it would be attached to the house, set back from the street at a lower level and the established building line of the terraces would not be broken. He says that the general openness of the property and how it contributes to the wider character of the area would not be materially affected.27.It is Mr Metcalfe’s opinion that the design, scale, mass and proportions have been well considered by the applicants and their architect. The extension would remain subservient to the existing property due to its lower height and stepped back front elevation, which follow the Council’s published guidance on home extensions. The location, design and proportion of the fenestration would reflect the existing character of the Property and comply with the Council’s guidance. Because the Property is partially screened by laurel and conifer hedging, and sits at a level lower than the approach road, its prominence within the wider setting of Beechcroft Manor would be reduced. The extension would be read as part of the existing terrace and the juxtaposition with the adjacent terrace would not be significantly altered.28.Mr Metcalfe considered the impact of the proposed extension on the objectors’ properties, in particular the adjoining No. 53 and adjacent No.51. He concluded that there would be no loss of light or overbearing impact on No. 53, and no loss of privacy since all new windows in the extension would share the same orientation as in the existing Property. The gable end wall of No. 51, which sits above the Property and at an angle to it, has no windows which could lose light or privacy, or experience an overbearing impact as a result of the proposed extension at a lower level.29.The existing garden to the side and rear of the Property is generous in size and Mr Metcalfe considered that the smaller reconfigured garden which would result from construction of the extension would still be materially larger than the gardens of most other properties. The only notable tree in the garden is a silver birch at the rear, which would not be affected by the extension. The proposal would not therefore result in a detriment to the ‘green’ character of Beechcroft Manor. The provision of an additional parking space at the front of the property would still leave a good balance of parking and planting on the corner plot.