Erection of a 1st floor side extension & loft conversion & changing existing roof tiles over

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 September 2017 by Rory MacLeod BA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 02 October 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/L3625/D/17/3178336 3 Ellington Way, Epsom Downs KT18 5TA  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 and Mrs Austin against the decision of Reigate & Banstead Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/00147/HHOLD, dated 18 January 2017, was refused by notice dated 30 March 2017.  The development proposed is erection of a 1st floor side extension & loft conversion & changing existing roof tiles over. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 2 Ellington Way in relation to being dominating and overbearing. Reasons 3. The appeal relates to a modern detached two storey house with gable end flank walls and a single storey element to the eastern side comprising a garage with a study and utility room behind. The house is part of a small estate of detached houses of varying size and design arranged informally around an access drive. There is a change in ground levels such that 2 Ellington Way, the house to the east, is on lower ground by approximately one metre. The orientation of the houses is such that the outlook from the rear facing windows at 2 Ellington Way is on to the flank wall of 3 Ellington Way. 4. It is proposed to construct a first floor side extension to align with the front and rear walls of the house with a gable end wall facing towards 2 Ellington Way. At second floor level the roof space within the original house and within the extension would be converted to provide bedrooms with three rear facing dormer windows. A new roof would be completed in plain tiles. 5. The rear garden at 2 Ellington Way is wide, but not deep. The distance from the rear wall of no.2 to the rear boundary with no.3 is approximately 9.6m according to the officer report. The plans show the width of the extension to be 2.63m. The resultant separation between the rear wall of no.2 and the new flank gable wall at no.3 would be about 11m, a reduction of some 20% in the separation to the present first floor flank wall. Appeal Decision APP/L3625/D/17/3178336 2 6. In my opinion this would result in a significant change in the living conditions for the occupiers of no.2. Whilst the outlook from rear windows is already on to the flank gable wall at no.3, the flank gable profile would increase in size reducing the sky component in that outlook. The profile of the development would also be enlarged by the flank of the nearest rear facing dormer, projecting 2.857m from just below the roof ridge according to the plans. The overbearing nature of the proposal would be exacerbated by the changes of level. It would appear as a close and dominating feature rising from just behind the rear boundary fence and looming over the garden. 7. In these respects the proposal would be contrary to Policy Ho9 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan 2005 that lists several criteria to support the appropriate design and layout for new residential development including that the layout and design should not seriously affect the amenities of adjoining properties. It would also be in conflict with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Householder Extensions & Alterations (2004) (SPD) in that it would significantly affect the immediate outlook from a neighbour’s windows and appear overbearing. Although these documents are not of recent date, the concerns raised are reflective of one of the core planning principles at Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) that requires development to provide a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupiers of land and buildings. 8. The appellant has inferred that the development would in part be screened by existing vegetation. There is a small tree in the back garden of no.2 level with the garage at no.3. This would have a limited screening effect when the extension is viewed from the kitchen window at the northern end of no.2. The tree’s canopy would have no effect on the outlook from the windows serving the ground floor dining room and lounge and bedrooms above that look directly towards the gable wall. The extension would have a design sympathetic to that of the original dwelling, but this does not outweigh the harm I have described. 9. The appellant has obtained a Certificate of Lawful Development for a loft conversion with rear dormer (ref: 17/01296/CLP), confirming that the described full width box dormer would be permitted development. This is presented as a fall-back position if the appeal were to be dismissed, and is a material consideration. However, to my mind the effect of the dormer on living conditions at no.2 would not be worse than the appeal proposal. The box dormer would add to the bulk of the profile presented to no.2 reducing the sky component in the outlook from rear windows, but it would be set farther back and not positioned as directly in front of these windows. As such, I ascribe only moderate weight to this fallback position. Conclusion 10. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all matters raised, my conclusion is that the development would have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 2 Ellington Way through being dominating and overbearing, and that this would not be outweighed by any fall-back position. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Rory MacLeod INSPECTOR