Construction of a first floor side extension above existing garage to create en-suite bedroom with pitched roof over existing offshot

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 December 2017 by John Dowsett MA DipURP DipUD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 26th January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A4520/D/17/3183106 104 Sunderland Road, South Shields NE34 6LX  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 James Patton against the decision of South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref: ST/0609/17/HFUL, dated 26 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 21 August 2017.  The development proposed is the construction of a first floor side extension above existing garage to create en-suite bedroom with pitched roof over existing offshot. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. The description used by the Council on the decision notice accurately sets out the development proposed and I note that the appellant has adopted this on the appeal form. I have, therefore, also used this description for the purposes of the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. Policy DM1 of the South Tyneside Development Management Policies 2011 (DMP) expects, among other matters, that new development has regard to its context and, where possible, enhances its local setting and reinforce local identity. This is consistent with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to ensure that new development is of a high standard of design. Further guidance on extensions to dwelling houses is found in the South Tyneside Supplementary Planning Document 9: Householder Developments 2014 (the SPD) which sets out general design criteria that seek to ensure extensions to dwellings are of an appropriate design. The SPD states that where a plot has been developed across its whole width by a single storey extension or garage, as is the case with the appeal building, a first floor extension built up to the boundary may be acceptable where it does not occupy more than two thirds of the depth of the dwelling. 5. The appeal building is one half of a pair of semi-detached houses that forms part of a group of similar houses on the west side of this part of Sunderland Appeal Decision APP/A4520/D/17/3183106 2 Road. These houses would have been of a similar design when originally constructed, however, subsequent alterations have eroded this uniformity. Six of the dwellings in the group have been altered by way of a first floor side extension and these take a variety of forms. Most, though not all are slightly set back from the main frontage of the house and the majority have a lower ridgeline than that of the main house. The widths of these previous extensions also vary. I observed when I visited the site that the spacing between the houses forming the group is not uniform with those at the north end of the group having a greater degree of separation from their neighbours than those at the south end. Nonetheless, the housing in the surrounding area comprises almost exclusively semi-detached properties and this gives the area a strong character and an open feeling. This is particularly noticeable on Sunderland Road due to the width of the carriageway. Opposite the appeal building, the houses occupy large plots which accentuate the open character. 6. The Council’s principal concern is that the proposed extension would result in a terracing effect by reducing the first floor separation between the neighbouring pairs of semi-detached houses. There are no terraced houses in the near vicinity with the exception of one short terrace of three houses at the junction with Clifton Avenue, some distance to the south of the appeal building. Terraced properties do not become common until significantly further south on Sunderland Road, past the junction with Marsden Road where the overall character of the road changes. As a result of the degree of separation, there is no direct visual relationship between these buildings and the appeal building. The physical joining or significantly reducing the separation between semi- detached properties incrementally changes the architectural character of an area by altering the prevailing building form and reducing openness. Previous extensions within the group of buildings on this section of Sunderland Road have already diminished the open character of the area. 7. The proposed extension would be built up to the boundary with the neighbouring property at number 102. The current attached garage at number 102 is set in approximately 1 metre from boundary with the main house beyond. In the current situation, the proposed extension, whilst not physically joining the properties would substantially reduce the perceived gap between them, further reducing the overall open character of the area. This, in itself, would not reinforce local identity and would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area which is typified by pairs of semi-detached houses set in from the boundary with their neighbours. 8. The appeal proposal meets all of requirements of Paragraph 7.5 of the SPD with the exception of that relating to the degree of setback. Whilst it would be set back by 1 metre from the main façade of the appeal building, I saw when I visited the site that where a similar set back has been incorporated into other extensions it does little to reduce the visual effect of the reduction in the gap between properties. I also saw that an extension has been carried out at number 100 which is set well back from the building frontage and has a significantly reduced visual effect. 9. Although there is no evidence before me that such an extension is being contemplated, I recognise that there could be a future application to demolish the existing garage and build a similar extension at 102. In the event that I were to allow this appeal, it would be difficult for the Council to resist future similar applications or to require the resident of number 102 to set any Appeal Decision APP/A4520/D/17/3183106 3 extension back from the boundary. There are also other properties within the group where this proposal could be used in support of similar schemes. These would further exacerbate the erosion of the openness of the area and, incrementally, substantially change its character to a group of buildings that reads as a terrace amid an area predominantly formed of semidetached properties. 10. The appellant contends that any new extension could not be built to the boundary due to the presence of a utility room window in the side wall of the existing ground floor extension to the appeal building. However, this window is not to a habitable room and there is nothing in the planning legislation or the building regulations that prevents an extension being built up to the boundary at number 102. 11. Whilst I accept that the previous extensions may have been constructed under a different policy regime than that which now exists and are now part of the existing street scene, there is only one that is directly comparable to the appeal proposal in terms of its relationship to the common boundary and distance from neighbouring properties at number 94. I saw when I visited the site that this significantly reduces the spacing between the properties and I do not consider that this would justify the further erosion of the character of the street that would result from the appeal proposal. 12. The reason for refusal also states that the appeal proposal would not appear subordinate to the main house due to its width. There is a discrepancy between reason for refusal and officer’s report on the planning application, which states that the extension would appear subordinate. 13. The proposed extension would be set back from main house frontage by 1 metre and the ridge line of new extension lower than main house. At approximately 3.8 metres wide the proposed extension would slightly exceed half the width of the main house frontage of approximately 7 metres. Nevertheless the amount by which the proposal exceeds the requirements of the policy is modest. I saw when I visited the site that the exiting extensions at number 106 and number 84 are of a similar width as the appeal proposal but as a result of the ridge of the roof being lower, and in the case of number 84 the extension also being set back from the main façade of the house, these extensions did not appear overly dominant and remained subordinate to the original house. Within this context, I find that, in itself, the proposed extension would be subordinate to the existing house. This does not, however, outweigh the harm that the proposal would cause to the character and appearance of the area. 14. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would not comply with the relevant requirements of Policy DM1 of the DMP or Paragraph 7.5 of the SPD. Conclusion 15. For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. John Dowsett INSPECTOR