Second floor rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 December 2017 by Andrew McGlone BSc MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 21 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/C4235/D/17/3183005 9 Shoreditch Close, Heaton Moor, Stockport SK4 4RW  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 P Cheetham against the decision of Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref DC/066045, dated 6 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 17 July 2017.  The development proposed is a second floor rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 7 Shoreditch Close, with regards to outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a modern detached dwelling that has previously been extended. The appeal property forms part of a staggered row of properties. This means that No 7 is marginally forward of the appeal property, while 11 Shoreditch Close is positioned slightly behind the first floor of No 9. A conservatory is to the rear of No 7. This is to the south of the dwelling and away from the common boundary with No 9. At first floor there is a bedroom nearest to the proposed development which would be above a single storey part of the dwelling to the rear. To the rear of Nos 7 and 9 is the gable elevation of 5 Shoreditch Close, a two storey dwelling. 4. The Council’s Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) explains that two storey rear extensions along or adjacent to common boundaries should be avoided, even more so on the south-facing side. This form of development will only be acceptable if it can be demonstrated that it will not result in an unacceptable loss of daylight or outlook to neighbouring properties. The SPD continues to say that poorly designed or overly large extensions can cause a loss of outlook, overshadowing or an overbearing impact to neighbouring properties. 5. The proposed extension would extend across the full width of the dwelling and project roughly 3.717 metres away from the existing first floor rear elevation. A matching eaves and ridge line are proposed. Appeal Decision APP/C4235/D/17/3183005 2 6. The main parties agree that the application of a 45 degree rule is essential in protecting neighbours living conditions against the construction of very large house extensions. In this regard, the proposed extension would impinge upon the 45 degree angle from the centre of the nearest first floor bedroom in No 7. The infringement would not be small. Accordingly, harm would arise to the outlook from this bedroom window. This harm would be compounded by the proposed two storey flank brick wall. While satisfactory materials would be used and the extension is designed so that it would preserve the character and appearance of the area, it would have an overbearing impact on the occupants of No 7 due to its size. This would significantly harm the outlook from the first floor bedroom window in No 7. 7. I note that the Council suggested potential amendments to the appeal scheme before they refused planning permission. Nevertheless the appellant is not bound to agree to them and I note they refer to the two storey extension at 13 Shoreditch Close1. It is submitted that the appeal scheme is similar to the extension at No 13. However, this and other examples at 23, 29 and 31 Hamsworth Drive and 12 Deniston Road all pre-date the Core Strategy DPD and the SPD. The appellant accepts that planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The development plan for Stockport has changed since planning permission was granted at No 13. The example therefore carries little weight. 8. The appeal scheme could be reduced in depth to accord with the 45 degree rule. However, I have considered the appeal based on the plans that are before me. In any event, the appellant would need to re-apply for planning permission if they were to revise their scheme. 9. My attention has also been drawn to 28 Deniston Road2. However, the layout of No 28 and the dwellings either side differs as they are positioned on a bend. Thus the circumstances are not comparable. Nevertheless, I have considered the appeal on its own planning merits. 10. Although the proposal would enhance the living conditions and well-being of occupants of No 9 through the formation of a balanced property, the development would not maintain or enhance satisfactory living conditions for neighbouring residents in No 7 whose outlook would be harmed. Hence, I do not agree that the Council’s concerns are over exaggerated. 11. Given the position and orientation of the proposed development in relation to neighbouring properties I agree with the appellant that no adverse effects would be felt in terms of sunlight and daylight. I also agree that the occupants of No 5 would not suffer any loss of privacy. In respect of No 11, no harm would occur in respect of outlook. 12. I conclude that the proposed development would significantly harm the living conditions of the occupiers of 7 Shoreditch Close, with regards to outlook. The proposal would not accord with Policy SIE-1 of the Core Strategy DPD 2011, saved Policy CDH1.8 of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan Review, the SPD and paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Jointly, among other things, these seek to ensure that development does not cause 1 Council Application Ref: DC/019686 2 Council Application Ref: DC/054935 Appeal Decision APP/C4235/D/17/3183005 3 damage to the living conditions of neighbouring residents in terms of outlook, so that there is a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Conclusion 13. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Andrew McGlone INSPECTOR