PLANNING REPORT
Printed for officer by
Chirag Bhavan on 28 June 2023

ENVIRONMENT DIRECTORATE

USTOMER SERVICES

Application reference:  23/1193/HOT
TEDDINGTON WARD

Date application received	Date made valid	Target report date	8 Week date	
03.05.2023	11.05.2023	06.07.2023	06.07.2023	

  Site:
14 Avenue Gardens, Teddington, TW11 0BH, 	
Proposal:	
Proposed single storey rear extension and first floor window enlargement

Status: Pending Consideration  (If status = HOLD please check that all is OK before you proceed any further with this application)	
	
APPLICANT NAME
Mr Jenns
14 Avenue Gardens
Teddington
Richmond Upon Thames
TW11 0BH
		AGENT NAME
Mr Dan Brandt
45 Maplewell Road
Woodhouse Eaves
Loughborough
LE12 8RG

DC Site Notice:  printed on  and posted on  and due to expire on 

Consultations: 
Internal/External:
Consultee	Expiry Date	
 LBRuT Trees Preservation Officer (North)	25.05.2023	

Neighbours:

95 Park Road,Teddington,TW11 0AW, - 11.05.2023
93 Park Road,Teddington,TW11 0AW, - 11.05.2023
91 Park Road,Teddington,TW11 0AW, - 11.05.2023
12 Avenue Gardens,Teddington,TW11 0BH, - 11.05.2023
16 Avenue Gardens,Teddington,TW11 0BH, - 11.05.2023

History: Development Management, Appeals, Building Control, Enforcements:

Development Management
Status: PCO	Application:23/1193/HOT
Date:	Proposed single storey rear extension and first floor window enlargement

Development Management
Status: REF	Application:23/1195/PS192
Date:26/06/2023	Proposed hip to gable loft conversion with rear dormer and three front elevation skylights

Building Control
Deposit Date: 03.07.2009	EC: Extension to circuit (in kitchen special location/ installation) Lighting circuit Main/ supplementary equipotential bonding New consumer unit New installation rewire or partial rewire One or more new circuits Ring/ radial power circuit
Reference: 09/BRE00077/BRECECA

Building Control
Deposit Date: 20.01.2012	1 Window
Reference: 12/FEN00682/FENSA

Building Control
Deposit Date: 07.04.2022	Circuit alteration or addition in a special location
Reference: 22/NIC00904/NICEIC

Building Control
Deposit Date: 25.01.2023	Construction of outbuilding in the garden, with a toilet and sink, to be used as a home office. Fire resistant cladding on side and rear elevations
Reference: 23/0141/BN

Building Control
Deposit Date: 02.06.2023	Single storey rear extension and loft conversion
Reference: 23/0881/IN

Application Number 	23/1193/HOT	
Address 	14 Avenue Gardens, Teddington, TW11 0BH	
Proposal 	Proposed single storey rear extension and first floor window enlargement	
Contact Officer 	CBH	
Target Determination Date 	06/07/2023	

1. INTRODUCTION 
 
This application is of a nature where the Council’s Constitution delegates the authority to make the decision to Officers rather than it being determined by the Planning Committee.  
 
Before preparing this summary report the planning officer considered any relevant previous planning applications in relation to the development and considered any comments made by those interested in the application such as consultees with specialist knowledge and nearby residents.  
 
By indicating that the development proposal complies with relevant Local Plan Policies, the planning officer has considered the information submitted with the application, any previous relevant applications, any comments received in connection with the application and any other case specific considerations which are material to the decision. 
 
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS 
 
The property is a semi-detached two-storey brick dwelling house and forms part of a pair of dwellings  located on the western side of Avenue Gardens.  

Surrounding development consists of semi-detached dwelling houses, typically brick at the ground floor and cladding at the first floor and driveway crossovers to single hardstand parking spaces.

The dwelling is not a Building of Townscape Merit, nor is it a Listed Building or located in a Conservation Area. It is not subject to an Article 4 Direction or any other condition restricting permitted development for rear/side extensions. 
 
The application site is situated within Hampton Wick and Teddington Village and is designated as:

•	Area Susceptible To Groundwater Flood - Environment Agency (Superficial Deposits Flooding - >= 75% - SSA Pool ID: 336)
•	Article 4 Direction Basements (Article 4 Direction - Basements / Ref: ART4/BASEMENTS / Effective from: 18/04/2018)
•	Community Infrastructure Levy Band (Low)
•	Critical Drainage Area - Environment Agency (Teddington [Richmond] / Ref: Group8_006 / )
•	Increased Potential Elevated Groundwater (GLA Drain London)
•	Main Centre Buffer Zone (Teddington Town Centre Boundary Buffer Zone - A residential development or a mixed use scheme within this 400 metre buffer area identified within the
•	Plan does not have to apply the Sequential Test (for Flood Risk) as set out in Local Plan policy LP21.)
•	TPO (REF: T1167 - T1 Pine Tree - Pinus sp)
•	Village Character Area (Broad Street and Queens Road - Area 15 (Sub Area) Hampton Wick & Teddington Village Planning Guidance Page 55 CHARAREA11/15/03)
•	Ward (Teddington Ward)

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL AND ANY RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 

The proposal seeks to demolish a portion of the existing dwelling and erect a new ground floor rear extension. The ground floor extension is proposed to extend beyond the existing rear building line and is proposed to match the established side elevations of the existing dwelling. The extension includes two new rooflights and internal changes are proposed to the existing ground floor plan. An existing first floor window to the side elevation of the dwelling is also proposed to be enlarged. 
 
Development Management
Status: GTD	Application: 15/2515/HOT
Address: 20 Avenue Gardens Teddington TW11 0BH
Date: 31/07/2015	Proposal: Single storey rear extension
 
4. CONSULTATIONS CARRIED OUT 
 
The list of neighbours notified of this application are listed above. 

No letters of representation were received.

Internal consultees

Tree Officer – No objections raised, subject to a tree protection condition as part of any approval.
 
5. MAIN POLICIES RELEVANT TO THE DECISION 
 
NPPF (2021) 

The key chapters applying to the site are: 
 
4. Decision-making 
12. Achieving well-designed places 
 
These policies can be found at: 
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1005759/NPPF_July_2021.pdf 
 
London Plan (2021) 
 
The main policies applying to the site are: 
 
D4 Delivering good design 
D12 Fire Safety 
 
These policies can be found at: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/planning/london-plan 

Richmond Local Plan (2018) 
 
The main planning considerations applying to the site and the associated Local Plan policies are: 
 
Issue 	Local Plan Policy 	Compliance 	
Local Character and Design Quality 	LP1	Yes 	No 	
Impact on Amenity and Living Conditions 	LP8 	Yes 	No 	
Trees, Woodlands and Landscape	LP16	Yes 	No 	
Flood Risk and Sustainable Drainage	LP21	Yes 	No 	

These policies can be found at  
https://www.richmond.gov.uk/media/15935/adopted_local_plan_interim.pdf 

Richmond Publication Local Plan (Regulation 19 version) 
 
The Richmond Publication Version Local Plan (Regulation 19 version) and its supporting documents, including all the Regulation 18 representations received, was considered at Full Council on 27 April. Approval was given to consult on the Regulation 19 Plan and, further, to submit the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for Examination in due course. The Publication Version Local Plan, including its accompanying documents, have been published for consultation on 9 June 2023. Together with the evidence, the Plan is a material consideration for the purposes of decision-making on planning applications.

The weight to be given to each of the emerging policies and allocations will depend on an assessment against the criteria set out in paragraph 48 of the NPPF. As the Council considers the emerging Local Plan to be sound and legally compliant, officers and Councillors should accord relevant policies and allocations weight in the determination of applications taking account of the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies. Note that it was agreed by Full Council that no weight will be given to Policy 4 in relation to the increased carbon offset rate, and therefore the existing rate of £95/t will continue to be applied; in addition, no weight will be given to Policy 39 in relation to the 20% biodiversity net gain requirement at this stage; all other aspects and requirements of these policies will apply.  

Supplementary Planning Documents 
 
House Extension and External Alterations 
Hampton Wick & Teddington Village Planning Guidance
 
These policies can be found at: https://www.richmond.gov.uk/services/planning/planning_policy/local_plan/supplementary_planning_documents_and_guidance  
 
 6. EXPLANATION OF OFFICER RECOMMENDATION 
 
The key issues for consideration are: 

i.	Design
ii.	Impact on neighbour amenity 
iii.	Tree Impacts
iv.	Flood Risk
v.	Fire Safety

i.	Design 
Policy LP1 of the Local Plan seeks to maintain and, where possible, enhance the high architectural and urban design quality which contributes to the character and heritage of the area. Proposals should demonstrate an understanding of the site and its context when considering the design including layout, siting and access and the compatibility of the works to the neighbouring uses. 
 
The Councils SPD relating to House Extensions and External Alterations advises the following with regard to extensions:

•	Generally an extension of 3.5m in depth for a semi-detached property will be acceptable.
•	The external appearance of any extension must be carefully designed in order to avoid the visual confusion that can result when the style and materials of the original house are ignored.
•	The overall shape, size and position of rear and side extensions should not dominate the existing house or its neighbours. They should harmonise with the original appearance, which should be taken as the starting point for any future changes.
•	The extension is made to appear as an obvious addition which is subordinate to the main structure.
A ground floor rear extension is proposed to replace the existing single storey rear extension and match the established side building line of the existing dwelling and extend the rear building line by a total of 1.6m beyond the existing extension. The proposal will have a maximum height of 3.95m when measured from the rear and side boundaries, a total length of 5m and total width of 5.4m and will be constructed with render, grey eternit slate roof tiles and aluminium windows. 

Rear extensions are common within the immediate vicinity and most importantly, the proposal retains the established side set-in from the northern boundary which is a typical feature within the groups of dwellings. The proposed extension will be located at the rear of the property and has been designed to ensure it will not be visible from the street. 
	
When considering the immediate surroundings there are some examples of recent rear extensions of this scale and depth, including those of Nos. 8 and 25 Avenue Gardens. While the proposed extension does seek to extend the rear building line further than the adjoining extensions of Nos. 16 and 12 Avenue Gardens, its scale and design is comparable with more recent extensions which have typically extended 6m in length and employed pitched roofs with 2.7m eaves heights and an overall height of 3.8m. As such, it is considered that while the extension may be perceived as large in scale when compared to the existing dwelling, on balance, it has been appropriately designed in terms of scale and massing against the broader context of the surrounding area. It is also noted that the proposal would be more consistent with the Council’s SPD as it employs an eaves heights of 2.4m which is comparably lower than more recent extensions within the vicinity. Finally, it is noted that the site has a moderate sized garden area and therefore the proposed extension will not dominate this space or appear as overdeveloped.

Floor to ceiling glazed doors and triangular clerestory “gable” windows are proposed to rear elevation of the extension. While the extent of glazing is comparably greater than that of the existing dwelling’s rear elevation and the immediately adjacent properties, it is similar to the design of glazed elements approved on more recent rear extensions at Nos. 8 and 25 Avenue Gardens. On balance, it is considered that the proposed glazing to the rear elevation is acceptable for the surrounding area and would not detract from the existing dwelling. Furthermore, the proposed design would reaffirm the hierarchy of ground floor and first windows recommended under the Council’s SPD. 
 
Two rooflights are proposed to pitched roof of the extension which would have minimal projection from the roof slope and would not be visible from the street frontage or the rear of the site. Given their design and location, no objection is raised regarding this aspect of the proposal. 

In view of the above, the proposal complies with the aims and objectives of policy LP1 of the current Local Plan (2018), the new Publication Local Plan (Regulation 19 version), and the House Extensions and External Alterations SPD.
 
ii.	Impact on neighbour amenity
Policy LP8 states that development must protect the amenity and living conditions of existing, adjoining and neighbouring occupants. Design must allow for good daylight standards, avoid overlooking or noise disturbance, avoid visual intrusion, overbearing impacts or harm to the reasonable enjoyment of the uses of buildings and gardens. Harm may arise from various impacts such as noise, air pollution, odours or vibration. 
 
The SPD on House Extensions and External Alterations notes that generally an extension of 3.5m in depth for a semi-detached property will be acceptable. Where the proposed extension seeks a larger depth, the eaves should be reduced at the shared boundary to mitigate detrimental impact on neighbours such as sense of enclosure or overbearing. However, the final test of acceptability is dependent on the specific circumstances of the site which may justify greater rear projection. 

Immediately adjoining the subject dwelling are Nos. 12 and 16 Avenue Gardens. Given their proximity to the subject site, any alteration to the existing dwelling would be most likely to impact these neighbours. 

As discussed previously, the proposed extension is a total of 5m in depth and therefore projects more than the 3.5m in depth which is generally considered acceptable under Council’s SPD with regard to residential amenity. However, the extension only extends approximately 1.6m beyond the /rear extension of the adjoining semi-detached dwelling at No. 16 Avenue Gardens which is equivalent to an SPD compliant extension and is generally considered acceptable in this instance given the reduced eaves heights and pitched roof which have been employed, which only extend up to 2.4m in height on each side. This ensures that the extension will not result in any undue sense of overbearing which is considered would be enhanced through the use of a flat roof with a greater eaves height. The proposed extension is comparable with other ground floor extensions within the immediate context which have similar length, height and form. As such, while the proposed extension may be perceived as being larger than the extensions of the adjoining properties, on balance, it is  comparable to an SPD compliant extension due to the nature of the existing extensions at Nos. 16, while employing a limited eaves height to further limit any impacts. 

With regard to No. 12 Avenue Gardens, while the extension projects further toward the shared side boundary, the established 800mm setback which is typical between the group of semi-detached dwelling is being retained. As per the relationship with No. 16, the extension only projects approximately 1.6m beyond the rear elevation of No. 12 and therefore reflects an SPD compliant extension. Furthermore, given the single storey nature of the extension and that it has been designed to have a pitched roof and lower eaves heights, it is unlikely that the proposal will result in any further sense of visual bulk and scale to this neighbouring property. 

The proposed extension does not include any new windows to side elevations however, an existing first floor window located along the northern side elevation of the dwelling is proposed to be enlarged. Alterations to this existing window are considered acceptable and would not result in increased overlooking or visual privacy concerns given the minor increase in size of the window would match the proportions of other existing windows along this elevation and, given the window would remain offset from adjacent first floor windows at No. 16 Avenue Gardens. 

Glazing is also proposed to the rear elevation. Given these windows are located at the ground floor, are orientated to face the rear garden of the dwelling and that any potential sightlines would be restricted by existing boundary fences, it is considered that the proposed windows would not result in any undue privacy impacts. Furthermore, the proposed roof lights are above head height and therefore do not afford loss of privacy for adjoining properties.

Given the single storey scale of the extension and the site’s orientation, it is unlikely that the proposed extension would affect the sunlight/daylight to neighbouring properties to the north, primarily the adjoining semi-detached terrace at No. 16 Avenue Gardens. While the extension projects 1.6m beyond neighbouring rear elevations, the overall length of the addition is comparable with other extensions and has been designed to employ a pitched roof with minimal eaves heights. As such, it is considered that any potential shadows cast by the proposal would fall within existing shadows cast or onto the roof of the neighbouring property. Furthermore, given the location of rear facing windows at No. 16 Avenue Gardens which are offset from the side boundary and given the separation between the two dwellings, it is unlikely that these windows would be impacted. 

Overall, having regard to its siting, design and scale it is considered that the proposal will not adversely impact neighbouring amenity and complies with the aims and objectives of policy LP8 of the current Local Plan (2018), the new Publication Local Plan (Regulation 19 version), and the House Extensions and External Alterations SPD.

iii.	Tree Impacts
Tree Preservation Order (TPO) T1167 protects a Pine tree located within the rear garden of the subject property. The tree is estimated to be approximately 17m from the existing building line and it is noted that the proposed extension projects 1.6m toward the rear boundary. Therefore, it is considered that encroachment into the Root Protection Area (RPA) of the tree will be avoided.

However, it is noted that there may be risk of harm to the Pine tree from construction related activities. As such, suitable tree protection conditions are recommended to ensure the long term health and viability of the tree.

It is also noted that there is a tree in the front garden and several other trees / vegetation in the rear garden. The Council’s Tree Officer reviewed the application and raised no objections subject to a condition to be imposed  as part of any approval decision which protects the trees from construction related activities.

Overall, no objection is raised to the proposed the development, subject to recommended tree protection condition. As such, it is considered that the proposal complies with the aims and objectives of policy LP16 of the current Local Plan (2018) and the new Publication Local Plan (Regulation 19 version).

iv.	Flood Risk

The subject dwelling has been identified by the Environment Agency to fall within area susceptible to groundwater flooding. In support of the application a flood risk assessment was submitted. The report concluded that the scheme would not increase the flood risk of the local area given the risk to flooding was low and the scheme was minor in nature. 

As such, it is considered that the proposed scheme meets the aims and objectives of policy LP21 of the current Local Plan (2018) and the new Publication Local Plan (Regulation 19 version).

v.	Fire Safety
London Plan policy D12 requires the submission of a Fire Safety Statement on all planning applications.

A Fire Safety Strategy was provided with the application. A condition will be included to ensure this is adhered to on an ongoing basis. The applicant is advised that materials and arrangements would need to be Building Regulations compliant, and all alterations to existing buildings should comply with the Building Regulations. This permission is not a consent under the Building Regulations for which a separate application should be made.

Overall, the scheme can therefore be considered consistent with this Policy D12 of the London Plan. 
 
7. LOCAL FINANCE CONSIDERATIONS AND OTHER MATTERS 
 
Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) provides that a local planning authority must have regard to a local finance consideration as far as it is material. The weight to be attached to a local finance consideration remains a matter for the decision maker. The Mayor of London's CIL and Richmond CIL are therefore material considerations. 
 
On initial assessment this development is not considered liable for the Mayoral or Richmond CIL however this is subject to confirmation by the CIL Administration Team.
 
8. RECOMMENDATION 
 
This recommendation is made following careful consideration of all the issues raised through the application process.

Paragraph 11 of the Framework explains how the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies.  For the reasons set out above, this application falls to be determined in accordance with the test under section 38(6) of the 2004 Act, the proposal is in general conformity with the Development Plan overall and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to justify refusal.  

Grant planning permission with conditions 

Recommendation:
The determination of this application falls within the scope of Officer delegated powers - YES / NO

I therefore recommend the following:

1.	REFUSAL 				
2.	PERMISSION			
3.	FORWARD TO COMMITTEE 	

This application is CIL liable			 YES*	 NO
						(*If yes, complete CIL tab in Uniform)

This application requires a Legal Agreement	 YES*	 NO
						(*If yes, complete Development Condition Monitoring in Uniform)

This application has representations online	 YES	 NO
(which are not on the file)
This application has representations on file	 YES	 NO

Case Officer (Initials): CBH			Dated: ……………04/07/2023…………………..

I agree the recommendation:

Team Leader/Head of Development Management/Principal Planner/Senior Planner

Dated: ……………05/07/2023…………………..

This application has been subject to representations that are contrary to the officer recommendation. The Head of Development Management has considered those representations and concluded that the application can be determined without reference to the Planning Committee in conjunction with existing delegated authority.

Head of Development Management: …………………………………..

Dated: …………………………

REASONS:

	
CONDITIONS:

INFORMATIVES:

UDP POLICIES:

OTHER POLICIES:

The following table will populate as a quick check by running the template once items have been entered into Uniform

SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS AND INFORMATIVES

CONDITIONS

INFORMATIVES