Single storey extension with extended flat roofed dormer above

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 December 2017 by Daniel Hartley BA Hons MTP MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 08 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A4710/D/17/3184491 10 Overdale Mount, Sowerby Bridge, Calderdale HX6 2SZ  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 & Mrs Richards against the decision of Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/00915/HSE, dated 22 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 15 September 2017.  The development proposed is a single storey extension with extended flat roofed dormer above. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No 9 Overdale Mount in respect of outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a semi-detached house set within an established cul- de-sac of houses. It is proposed to demolish a rear conservatory and to erect a flat roofed rear extension projecting about 4 metres from the rear wall of the dwelling. The rear extension would be positioned closer to the boundary with No 9 Overdale Mount than the existing conservatory. It is also proposed to erect two new rear dormers within the main roof of the property which would project over the proposed rear extension. As the proposal would be to the rear of the dwelling, I am satisfied that it would be acceptable in design terms. The main issue relates to the effect of the development upon the living conditions on the occupiers of the neighbouring property which is No 9 Overdale Mount. 4. As part of my site visit, I was able to consider the proposal from the rear garden area of No 9 Overdale Mount. Taking into account the height, bulk and position of the proposed rear extension and roof dormers, I consider that they would collectively have a significantly enclosing impact upon the living conditions of No 9 Overdale Mount when viewed from the adjacent patio area and the ground floor rear window. 5. I acknowledge that there are existing dormer windows within the main roof of the dwelling. However, in contrast these do not project beyond the eaves of main the roof and so do not have the same impact upon the occupiers of the Appeal Decision APP/A4710/D/17/3184491 2 neighbouring property. I do note that when compared to the existing dormers the proposed dormers would not be as tall and would have flat roofs instead of pitched roofs. Whilst this would lead to an overall improvement to the property in design terms, neither this, nor the relative set back of one of the proposed dormers, would be sufficient to outweigh the material harm that would be caused as a result of the loss of outlook for the occupiers of No 9 Overdale Mount. 6. For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the proposal would have a significantly detrimental impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No 9 Overdale Mount in respect of a loss of outlook. Whilst there was no objection from the occupier of the neighbouring property the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states, at Paragraph 17, that planning should “always seek to secure high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings”. The proposal would not accord with the amenity aims of Policy BE2 of the adopted Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan 2006 (as amended in August 2009) or the Framework. Other Matters 7. The appellant has commented that the occupiers of the neighbouring property would have more privacy given the position of the proposed dormers. However, this is not a matter which would outweigh my conclusion on the main issue. 8. I note the appellant’s view that it would be possible to replace the existing dormers utilising permitted development rights. However, any such a proposal would not be the same as the appeal development and, in any event, I have determined this appeal on its individual planning merits. 9. None of the other matters raised outweigh or alter my conclusion on the main issue. Conclusion 10. For the reasons outlined above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Daniel Hartley INSPECTOR