First floor extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 January 2018 by Ian McHugh DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 17th January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/V0510/D/17/3186030 1 Herons Close, Ely, CB6 3EF  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 M and M Jordan against the decision of East Cambridgeshire District Council.  The application Ref 17/00948/FUL, dated 26 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 20 July 2017.  The development proposed is a first floor extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. These are the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, with particular regard to outlook and privacy; and the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons Living Conditions 3. The appeal property is a detached dwelling, which is situated within a modern residential estate. The proposal is to construct a first floor extension at the rear of the property, above an existing single storey extension. This would provide additional accommodation in the form of a further bedroom and an en- suite shower/wc. 4. The proposal is a revised scheme following the Council’s refusal of a previous application for a first floor extension (reference: 14/01177/FULL), which was refused by the Borough Council on 13 March 2015. The revised proposal has reduced the width of the extension, by moving it 1.2m further away from the rear garden boundary of number 24 Merlin Drive (number 24) and the side boundary of number 11 Robins Close. The amendment has been made in response to the Council’s concerns over the impact of the earlier proposal on neighbouring occupiers. 5. Policy ENV2 of the adopted East Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2015 (LP) seeks (amongst other things) to ensure that new development does not adversely affect residential amenity. This is consistent with paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which states that planning should Appeal Decision APP/V0510/D/17/3186030 2 always ensure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. 6. Although the first floor extension would be set back from the boundary with number 24, I consider that it would have an overly dominant and oppressive effect on number 24, because of its height, mass and positioning in relation to the site boundary. Number 24 has a relatively short rear garden and, in my opinion, the impact of the extension would make the garden a less enjoyable place in which to be. 7. In addition, the proposed first floor bedroom window of the extension would be relatively close to the rear garden and house at number 11 Robins Close. Although that property is already overlooked by the first floor windows of the appeal dwelling, the extension would be significantly closer and the proposal would result in an increased threat to the privacy of its occupants, when in their garden and also in the house itself. 8. Therefore, I consider that the proposal would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings. Accordingly, it would conflict with the relevant policies of the LP and with the Framework, as referred to above. Character and Appearance 9. The Council argues that the proposed extension would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, as it would not be subservient to the existing dwelling and it would be visible from Merlin Drive and Robins Close. Policy ENV2 of the LP and the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document – Design Guide (SPD) seek (amongst other things) to ensure that new development is of high quality design that reflects its surroundings; and that when considering residential extensions, the original dwelling should remain ‘legible’. 10. Because of its width and height, I consider that the proposed extension would be a visually dominant addition in relation to the original dwelling. In that regard, there would be some conflict with the Council’s SPD. However, in my opinion that conflict is not necessarily determinative. The extension would complement the existing dwelling in terms of its materials, fenestration and roof design. As such, I am not persuaded that the effect of the extension on the appearance of the dwelling would be unacceptably harmful. Furthermore, although it would be visible from Merlin Drive and Robins Close, the public views of the extension would be across the gardens of other properties. Consequently, the visual impact on the streetscene would not, in my opinion, be significant. Accordingly, I conclude that the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area would not be unacceptably harmful. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above in respect of living conditions, it is concluded that the appeal should be dismissed. Ian McHugh INSPECTOR