For a side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 November 2017 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 1 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/U3935/D/17/3183337 15 Ransome Close, Shaw, Swindon, Wilts SN5 5SE  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 Tom Gallati against the decision of Swindon Borough Council.  The application Ref S/HOU/17/1131/CHHO, dated 29 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 18 August 2017.  The development proposed is for a side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a side extension at 15 Ransome Close, Shaw, Swindon, Wilts SN5 5SE in accordance with the terms of the application Ref S/HOU/17/1131/CHHO, dated 29 June 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1:1250 Location Plan and Drawing 2954/1. 3. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re- enacting that Order) no windows other than those hereby approved shall be formed in the east side elevation at first floor level of the side extension hereby permitted. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the appeal proposal upon the living conditions of the occupants of 12 Ransome Close, with specific reference to outlook. Reasons 3. The proposal would amount to a first floor extension over an existing garage which is situated to the eastern elevation of the host dwelling and would be converted into a study and extended to its rear. Appeal Decision APP/U3935/D/17/3183337 2 4. The Council stipulates that there would be a separation distance of approximately 9m between the flank elevation of the proposed side extension and the first floor bedroom window in the front elevation of 12 Ransome Close. The appellant states that this separation gap would be 11m. Whilst there is clearly disagreement between the parties in this respect, I note that the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (October 2011) (SPD) only stipulates minimum separation distances between the rear elevation of one dwelling to the side elevation of another. 5. Indeed, figure 3 as set out within paragraph 2.21 of the SPD shows such an example being where a rear extension is proposed and how that would relate to the existing flank wall of a neighbouring dwelling. Therefore, I find that the SPD minimum separation distances are not relevant to the proposal before me. Whilst I acknowledge that two storey built form would be brought closer to the ground floor living room and the aforementioned first floor windows serving no12, I consider that the relatively limited width of the extension would not significantly reduce the outlook from this neighbouring property. 6. I therefore find that the addition of a two storey flank wall as proposed would not result in an unduly overbearing or oppressive sense of enclosure when viewed from either the ground or first floor windows of 12 Ransome Close. Consequently the proposal would protect the living conditions of the occupants of that property and I find that the proposal complies with Policy DE1 of the Swindon Borough Local Plan 2026 (adopted 26 March 2015) which seeks to secure high standards of design in all types of development, including in respect of amenity and outlook. Conclusion and Conditions 7. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. 8. Other than the standard time limit condition, the Council has suggested a condition requiring the external materials to be used in the construction of the extension to match those of the existing building. In the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area this is an appropriate condition, along with requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. I also consider it necessary to remove permitted development rights to install any first floor windows in the eastern flank elevation of the extension in the future, so as to negate any actual or perceived loss of privacy that could be caused by overlooking there from. C J Tivey INSPECTOR