Part single storey, part two storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 September 2017 by Megan Thomas Barrister-at-Law an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 12 October 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/Y0435/D/17/3178655 5 Keynes Close, Newport Pagnell, Bucks MK16 9AT  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 Whiteway against the decision of Milton Keynes Council.  The application Ref 17/01072/FUL, dated 19 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 June 2017.  The development proposed is a “part single storey, part two storey rear extension ”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of 4 Keynes Close with regard to outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal site is a detached two storey dwelling situated on a cul-de-sac known as Keynes Close. To its south-eastern side is 4 Keynes Close, which is also a two storey dwelling. 4. The proposal includes infilling a small area on the ground floor of the south- eastern side of the house and the construction of a bedroom at first floor level above that filled-in area (annotated as bedroom 3 on plan PL02 rev A). The south-eastern flank wall of the proposed bedroom, and the new ground floor element below it, would be stepped in slightly from the existing south-eastern flank wall situated nearest to the front of the dwelling. 5. The scheme before me also includes extending the rear first floor of the dwelling over part of the existing single storey ground floor element of the dwelling. This latter extension and a single storey ground floor side infill extension have been granted planning permission pursuant to a previous planning application. 6. The proposed new first floor south eastern elevation forming bedroom 3 would in part be opposite a bedroom window at first floor level at 4 Keynes Close. The two properties are built in close proximity and the separation distances between the existing window and the proposed new wall would be in the region of about 1.5m to 1.8m. The affected bedroom at 4 Keynes Close is single Appeal Decision APP/Y0435/D/17/3178655 2 aspect, being served solely by the affected window. I was able to confirm this on my site visit as this included an inspection from the interior of the bedroom. The proposed wall at first floor level at 5 Keynes Close would be a blank wall and would create an unacceptable sense of enclosure from within the bedroom. Given the proximity, height and depth of the new wall, it would be a looming presence in the affected bedroom at 4 Keynes Close and a visual intrusion. The living conditions in that room would fall below an acceptable level. 7. I acknowledge that the rear first floor extension referred to in paragraph 5 above, could be implemented but the creation of bedroom 3 as proposed would result in a significantly worse situation for the outlook from the affected bedroom at 4 Keynes Close in any event. 8. The Council has not refused the application on the basis that the natural light reaching the affected bedroom at 4 Keynes Close would be unacceptable as a result of the proposed first floor side extension and I have no reason to disagree with that assessment. 9. I conclude that the proposed first floor side extension to create bedroom 3 at the appeal site would be unacceptably harmful to the living conditions of 4 Keynes Close by reason of loss of outlook. It would also be contrary to saved policy D1(iii) of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2001-2011 (adopted 2005). 10. Having taken into account all relevant representations made including the need to accommodate a growing family at the appeal site, for the reasons given above, I dismiss the appeal. Megan Thomas INSPECTOR