First floor side extension above existing single storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 September 2017 by D Cramond BSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 2nd October 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/N1730/D/17/3178174 32 School Lane, Yateley, GU46 6NL  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 Sam Wise against the decision of Hart District Council.  The application Ref 17/00454/HOU, dated 23 February 2017, was refused by notice dated 27 April 2017.  The development proposed is a first floor side extension above existing single storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor side extension above existing single storey side extension at 32 School Lane, Yateley, GU46 6NL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/00454/HOU, dated 23 February 2017, 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 materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Plan & Location Plan and SE3, FE1, FFP6, HSE4, RE2, GFP5. 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 other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed on any part of the development hereby permitted. 5. Prior to first occupation of the development hereby permitted the window in the first floor rear elevation of the proposed development shall: (a) be of purpose-made obscure glass, (b) be permanently fixed closed below a height of 1.7m above finished floor level, and shall thereafter be retained in that form. Appeal Decision APP/N1730/D/17/3178174 2 Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on living conditions for neighbours. Reasons Living conditions 3. The appeal property is a two storey end of terrace home characteristic of the locality. It has a comparatively generous plot which tapers towards the rear and has a service pathway running alongside its western boundary. Beyond this path, at right angles lie the relatively short rear gardens and rear two storey elevations of a number of terraced dwellings which front Kingfisher Drive. The proposal is as described above and would provide for a forward facing bedroom with an en-suite to its rear. 4. The Council, and some local residents, are concerned that the new addition, with a gable wall at right angles to the ends of neighbouring rear gardens, would be unacceptably overbearing for the nearest Kingfisher Drive occupiers. For my part, whilst I recognise that the distance between these neighbouring rear elevations or main rear garden areas to the planned side wall is not extensive, I would deem it to be a relationship which would not be overly oppressive such that people would feel unduly hemmed-in. It seems to me that the set-in distance to the Appellant’s side boundary, the width of the path, the general arrangement of fencing and significant vegetation, along with the rear gardens themselves would give sufficient separation. There would be no overlooking and very little change in daylight or sunlight given positioning and eastern orientation. I would consider that the relative positioning proposed would not be something out of the ordinary in an urban or relatively compact suburban context. In my opinion neighbours would continue to enjoy a reasonable outlook and the scheme would be neither unacceptable overdevelopment nor unduly overbearing. 5. I have had regard to the refusals of planning permission for previous development schemes at the appeal property which are to be found under Council refs 04/01636/FUL and 13/01066/HOU with the former dismissed at appeal under ref APP/N1730/A/05/1176503. However I am satisfied that the positioning, scale, design and window forms are sufficiently different between those schemes and the case in hand such that I can reasonably reach a different conclusion. 6. The Hart District Local Plan includes saved Policies GEN1 and URB16 which amongst other matters seek to prevent harm to the amenities of neighbours. In all the circumstances I conclude that this scheme would not run contrary to these policies for the reasons I have given. Conditions 7. The Council suggests the standard commencement condition along with the requirement for materials to match the existing building. I agree this latter condition would be appropriate in the interests of visual amenity. I also agree that there should be a condition that works are to be carried out in accordance with listed, approved, plans; to provide certainty. The Planning Officer’s report notes that a planning condition could be useful in controlling the form of windows and the Appellant has specifically referred to the arrangement of windows being designed to prevent loss of privacy. Neighbours are concerned Appeal Decision APP/N1730/D/17/3178174 3 about the potential for overlooking, and it has been a feature of refusal reasoning in the past. Given all these circumstances I deem suitable conditions controlling windows should be applied. Overall conclusion 8. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would not have unacceptable adverse effects on living conditions for neighbours. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. D Cramond INSPECTOR