Single storey rear extension and first floor extension to the side with loft conversion

Appeal Decisions Site visit carried out on 5 December 2017 by Mrs J A Vyse DipTP DipPBM MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 14 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/X4725/D/17/3176801 2 Headlands Walk, Ossett, Wakefield WF5 8RA  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 C Lindley against the decision of City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council.  The application No 17/00631/FUL, dated 2 March 2017, was refused by a notice dated 28 April 2017.  The development proposed is described on the application form as a single storey rear extension and first floor extension to the side with loft conversion. Decision 1. For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to erection of an extension to the rear of the garage, the erection of a first floor extension above the extended ground floor and the formation of additional accommodation in the roofspace above. 2. However, the appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the erection of a single storey extension to the rear of 2 Headlands Walk, Ossett, Wakefield in accordance with the terms of the application, No 17/00631/FUL, dated 2 March 2017 (so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted) subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with Plan No 1098-02 Revision A, but only insofar as it relates that part of the development hereby permitted: 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 windows/dormer windows or other openings shall be constructed on the north-west side elevation of the extension hereby permitted, adjacent to 4 Headlands Walk. Main Issue 3. This relates to the effect of the development proposed on the living conditions of the occupiers of 4 Top Headlands, having particular regard to outlook. Appeal Decisions APP/X4725/D/17/3176801 2 Reasons for the Decision 4. The appeal property, a modern two-storey detached dwelling within a residential estate, is adjoined to the side by a single garage with a pitched roof over. It is proposed to erect an extension to the rear of the garage to provide a study, which would align with the rear wall of the main house, to construct a first floor extension above the garage and the study extension to create an additional bedroom, with a further bedroom to be created within with the roof space above the first floor extension. 5. The Council’s space about dwelling standards, which are set out in Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG2 Residential Design Guide (1996) recommend a minimum 12 metres separation between the rear elevation of one dwelling and the side of another. As originally built, there is only some 10.3 metres between the rear of 4 Top Headlands (which backs onto the side of 2 Headlands Walk) and the side of the garage at the appeal property. That distance has since been reduced in part by extensions to the rear of No 4, constructed under permitted development rights. I understand that the separation currently is as little as 7-9.4 metres. 6. The development proposed would not result in any further reduction in the distance between the garage and No 4. At present, however, the nearest part of the appeal property to No 4 is single storey, set approximately 1 metre in from the shared boundary. The garage does not currently extend the full depth of No 2, although it does have a full pitched roof over. The development proposed would increase the depth of the nearest part of No 2 to the full depth of that property, with the resultant two storey gable extending across almost the full width of the rear garden to 4 Top Headlands. Whilst it would come no closer than the side wall of the existing garage, it would create a form of development that I would regard as having an unacceptably overbearing, if not overwhelming, visual impact, dominating the outlook from the rear of No 4 and its rear garden. 7. It is intended that the first floor would be finished in a light coloured render, which would have the potential to reflect light to a greater degree than the existing brick elevation that faces the rear of No 4. Be that as it may, the first floor would be much closer than the existing first floor at the appeal property and it would not overcome my concerns in relation to impact of the physical scale and bulk of the extension proposed. I am also mindful that no neighbour objections have been received. However, the absence of any objection does not necessarily equate to support. In any event, I have a duty to consider the impact of development including on future neighbours, even when no specific objection from third parties has been made. 8. To conclude on this element of the development proposed, I consider that the overall impact of the proposed extensions on the south-eastern side of the dwelling, adjacent to the boundary with 4 Top Headlands, would cause significant harm to the living conditions of adjoining occupiers in terms of their outlook. There would be conflict, in this regard, with policies D9 and D10 of the LDF Development Policies Document, and section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework which together and among other things seek to protect such interests. 9. It is also proposed to erect a modest single storey sun lounge extension to the Appeal Decisions APP/X4725/D/17/3176801 3 rear of the appeal property, adjacent to the boundary with 4 Headlands Walk. The Council takes no issue with this element of the development proposed. 10. The outlook from the nearest rear facing windows at 4 Headlands Walk is already dominated by the detached garage to that property, which is set back into the rear garden, adjacent to the shared boundary. The eaves to the proposed extension would be only marginally higher than the existing boundary fencing and the shallow roof would pitch away from the adjacent property, minimising its visual impact. As confirmed in the officer’s report, the extension raises no issues in terms of privacy (subject to a condition removing permitted development rights for the addition of openings in the north-west elevation) overshadowing, or appearance. I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s position on this and consider the single storey extension to be acceptable. Conclusions 11. I have found that the extensions proposed on the south-eastern side of the dwelling, adjacent to the boundary with 4 Top Headlands, would result in material harm to the living conditions of adjacent occupiers. I conclude therefore, that the appeal should not succeed in relation to this element of the proposal. However, there would be no material harm as a consequence of the single storey rear extension proposed. I therefore conclude that the appeal should succeed in relation to this element of the development proposed, which element is clearly severable from the remainder of the proposal. 12. In terms of conditions, in addition to the standard time limit on commencement of development, and a condition specifying the plan to which the permission relates, which is necessary as it provides certainty, it is necessary to ensure that the external materials used match those on the host property. In addition, as suggested in the officer’s report, a condition is required to remove permitted development rights in relation to the addition of windows or other openings in the side elevation of the extension which is contiguous with the boundary to 4 Headlands Walk. Jennifer A Vyse INSPECTOR