Single storey flat roofed rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 December 2017 by Alison Partington BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 15th December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/U2370/D/17/3184855 79 Springfield Drive, Thornton Cleveleys FY5 4LL  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 Miss Maddison McClusky against the decision of Wyre Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/00307/FUL, dated 7 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 12 July 2017.  The development proposed is a single storey flat roofed rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey flat roofed rear extension at 79 Springfield Drive, Thornton Cleveleys FY5 4LL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/00307/FUL, dated 7 April 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: Location Plan Ref 201701.LP; Existing Ground Floor Plan Ref 201701.PP.01; Existing Elevations Ref 201701.PP.03; Proposed Site Plan 201701.SP; Proposed Ground Floor Plan Ref 201701.PP.01 Rev C; and Proposed Elevations 201701.PP.04. 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. Main Issue 2. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 81 Springfield Drive with particular regard to outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached house located on a bend in the road which means that it, and its attached neighbour, have splayed plots with the rear boundary being much wider than the front. As a result of this, and the expansive playing fields located beyond, the rear elevation and gardens of these two properties enjoy a good degree of openness and space. Appeal Decision APP/U2370/D/17/3184855 2 4. Detailed guidance on extensions to dwellings is found in the Extending Your Home Supplementary Planning Document (adopted November 2007) (SPD). This indicates that a single storey or ground floor rear extension set off a boundary should not project more than the set off distance plus 3 metres from the main rear wall of the adjoining neighbouring property. In this case the Council have indicated that this means 3.2m. 5. The proposed extension would be located close to the common boundary and would extend approximately 6.75m along it. Therefore the extension would be larger than normally considered acceptable by the SPD. However, the size of the extension is determined by the specific requirements of the medical circumstances of the appellant’s son. The evidence indicates that internal alterations to the house to meet these needs are not possible, and that other positions for the extension within the plot would not be possible either. 6. The rear elevation of No 81 contains a mixture of both habitable and non- habitable windows and doors, and at present there is a high fence along the common boundary between Nos 79 and 81. Although the flat roofed design of the extension means that its height is limited, it would still be higher than the boundary fence. However, whilst it would be visible from the windows on the rear elevation of No 81, views would be at an angle with the main outlook of these windows being of the garden and to the playing fields beyond. 7. Given this, and due to the level of openness and space that the rear elevation and garden of No 81 enjoys, I am satisfied that, in this instance, the proposed extension would not have an overbearing impact on the occupiers of this dwelling. Consequently, I consider that the occupiers of this house would still have a pleasant outlook from the windows in the rear of their dwellings. In addition, given the limited height of the extension, I do not consider the proposal would create an unneighbourly sense of enclosure to the garden area. In addition, as No 81 lies to the south of No 79, the proposal would not result in any overshadowing or adverse loss of light to No 81, or its rear garden. 8. Thus whilst the proposal would not comply with the requirements of the SPD, given the specific circumstances of this case, which have led me to conclude that it would not have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, I consider that in this instance a larger extension would be acceptable. 9. Consequently, I consider that the proposed extension would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 81 Springfield Drive, with particular regard to outlook. Accordingly there would be no conflict with Policies Sp14 and H4 of the Wyre Borough Local Plan (adopted July 1999) which require that developments are compatible with adjacent land uses. 10. I note the concern regarding noise during construction but any such disturbance would only be for a temporary period. In addition, any damage caused to property during construction would be a private matter between the parties involved. Conclusion and Conditions 11. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. 12. In addition to the standard implementation condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant plans, as this provides certainty. In the Appeal Decision APP/U2370/D/17/3184855 3 interests of the character and appearance of the area a condition is required to control the external appearance of the extension. Alison Partington INSPECTOR