Erection of a first floor extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 March 2017 by Peter D Biggers BSc Hons MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 13 April 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/U4230/D/17/3168037 1 Portside Close, Boothstown, Worsley M28 1YY  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Paul Hayes against the decision of Salford City Council.  The application Ref 16/68627/HH, dated 25 July 2016, was refused by notice dated 5 December 2016.  The development proposed is erection of a first floor extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a first floor extension at 1 Portside Close, Boothstown, Worsley M28 1YY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 16/68627/HH, dated 25 July 2016, and the plans and documents submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following approved plans: Existing and Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations v4 (Bedroom No 4 lit by rooflights only). 3) 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. 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re- enacting that Order with or without modification), no window or other opening (other than those expressly authorised by this permission) shall be constructed on the north and west facing elevation of the rear extension hereby permitted. Main Issues 2. The main issue is whether the propos ed development would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of present and future occupants of No 1 in terms of the amenity and outlook achieved for b edroom No 4 and of neighbouring properties as a result of the proximity of the extension. Reasons 3. Portside Close where the appeal site is located is a short cul-de-sac of modern two storey detached houses in brick, render and tile. No 1 currently has a single storey hipped roof rear extension which it is proposed to increase to 2 storey, retaining the hipped roof. The proposed extension was redesigned to remove the west- facing window to bedroom No 4 to avoid overlooking of properties in Waterdale Appeal Decision APP/U4230/D/17/3168037 2 Close and instead the extended bedroom is proposed to be lit by rooflights. It was this version No 4 of the plans that was determined by the Council and refused. 4. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) seeks a high standard of design in all development which is not limited simply to the appearance of the development. The Core Principles at paragraph 17 require development to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Policy DES7 of the City of Salford Unitary Development Plan (UDP) in seeking to ensure development provides potential users with a satisfactory level of amenity in terms of space, sunlight, daylight, privacy, aspect and layout is consistent with the Framework. Specifically in respect of extensions and alterations the Council has published the House Extensions - Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to ensure such development is appropriately designed. 5. The proposed first floor extension is designed to extend the smallest fourth bedroom and provide it with an ensuite bathroom improving the space standards and layout of the dwelling in accordance with policy DES7. Although the Council refer to the extended bedroom as a master bedroom there is nothing in the evidence before me to suggest that this would be the intention. Bedroom 1 which is also ensuite would remain the largest bedroom in terms of floor area. 6. I acknowledge that bedrooms are classed as habitable rooms and as such certain amenity standards should be met. The proposals would include the installation of 2 rooflights serving the extended bedroom in place of the existing west-facing window and is a design solution intended to protect the privacy of neighbouring properties. The rooflights would provide both natural light and ventilation to bedroom No 4. Neither the UDP policy nor the SPD set out specific requirements in respect of light and ventilation and in any event the adequacy of the rooflights in terms of their ability to provide natural light and ventilation to the habitable room will be controlled under Building Regulations. 7. I acknowledge that the rooflights would not provide an outlook in the same way as a traditionally positioned vertical window but they would provide an open view of skyscape from within the room. There would be little difference in this proposal to the many cases where extensions into the roof space to provide habitable rooms are lit solely by rooflights. As such I am not persuaded that the lack of outlook would have such an adverse effect on living conditions for the occupants as to warrant dismissing the appeal on these grounds alone. 8. Although No 1 Portside Close is located on the south side of No 3, I am satisfied that the impact of the extension on sunlight to the house and garden at No 3 would not be significant. This is because No 3 is positioned slightly west of No 1 and, because the two storey extension would only have a 3 metre depth, it would not project to any significant extent beyond the rear elevation of No 3. 9. Although the first floor extension would be close to the neighbour’s boundary, the closest part of No 3 appeared to be the garage and ancillary windows rather than the habitable rooms of the main part of the house. As such the living conditions of neighbouring occupants would not be adversely affected by the increase in height and the extension would not be overbearing on the adjacent property. The removal of the previously proposed west-facing window from the first floor extension similarly means there would be no issues of overlooking for properties in Waterdale Close. 10. Accordingly the development would not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions for occupants of the host property or those of its neighbours and as Appeal Decision APP/U4230/D/17/3168037 3 such would not be in conflict with either the Framework or UDP policy DES7 or SPD policies. Conditions and Conclusions 11. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council against the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance and for their clarity. A condition requiring development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans is necessary as this provides certainty that the development would be carried out in the form proposed. A condition requiring matching materials to be used on the external surfaces of the building should also be imposed to protect the character and appearance of the dwelling and of the surroundings to the development. In order to protect the present and future occupants of the neighbouring properties at No 3 Portside Close and the property to the west in Waterdale Close from loss of privacy, a condition removing permitted development rights in respect of inserting additional windows in the north and west facing sides of the rear extension is necessary. 12. I have considered the matters before me and, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and permission granted for the rear extension subject to the conditions listed above. P. D. Biggers INSPECTOR