Proposed single storey extension forming kitchen and wetroom

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 November 2017 by Louise Nurser BA (Hons) Dip UP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 5 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/W4223/D/17/3183828 19 Onchan Avenue, Oldham OL4 1BJ  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 Mrs Aziza Begum against the decision of Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref HH/340348/17, dated 9 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 4 August 2017.  The development proposed is proposed single storey extension forming kitchen and wetroom. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the existing and future occupants of no 21 Onchan Avenue with particular reference to sunlight and daylight and outlook. Reason 3. The host property is a mid-terrace brick house whose rear elevation backs onto a ginnel and open land. 4. At my site visit I was aware that the host property, together with no 21 Onchan Avenue, are three stories high and are consequently taller than the other houses along Onchan Avenue. I also noticed that a number of properties have been extended at the rear, including at no 23 Onchan Avenue. However, I am not aware of the planning status of these extensions. 5. The rear outrigger to numbers 19 and 21 Onchan Avenue appears to be an original element of the two houses and has been designed as a mirror image of both properties. The proposed extension would extend the ridge of the existing outrigger the length of the modest yard at the rear of the property. This would enable the construction of a larger kitchen and a wet room to serve the needs of the appellant, who suffers from ill health. 6. However, a consequence of this would be that the occupants of number 21 would be faced by a blank wall the length of their modest yard. At my site visit I observed that the occupants fully utilised the yard area for the drying of clothes and as an area in which children can play. Were the appeal before me Appeal Decision APP/W4223/D/17/3183828 2 to be allowed, due to the height of the proposed development, which is compounded by the difference in levels, there would be an impact on the levels of daylight and a loss of light in the afternoon in the yard. Consequently, in combination with the neighbouring extension at number 23, it would appear oppressive. This would significantly adversely impact on the use and enjoyment of the yard. 7. I took the opportunity to enter number 21 to consider the impact of the proposed development. The tall wall would be around half a metre from the window in the kitchen. Consequently, this would impact on the levels of light entering the kitchen window of no 21 and would appear oppressive to anyone working in the kitchen. I have also carefully considered the impact of the proposed development when sitting in the family room at the rear. However, due to the distance between the large window and the wall I do not consider that this impact would have a significantly adverse effect. 8. Nonetheless, I conclude due to the loss of light in the back yard and its impact on its use as an area in which to both play and dry clothes, as well as the significant adverse impact on those using the kitchen, that the proposed development would not accord with the provisions of Policy 9 of the Oldham Core Strategy adopted 2011. This requires that new development should not result in significant harm to the living conditions of existing neighbours. The policy predates the Framework. However, it accords with a core planning principle of the Framework to always seek to ensure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. As such, I accord the policy significant weight in my consideration of the appeal. 9. I have given careful consideration to the personal circumstances of the appellant. I sympathise with these circumstances and appreciate the benefits of providing a downstairs toilet and shower. However, for the reasons set out above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. L. Nurser INSPECTOR