First storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 January 2018 by A A Phillips BA (Hons) DipTP MTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 9 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B4215/D/17/3187386 33 Bankside Road, Manchester M20 5QE  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 Neil Mckenna against the decision of Manchester City Council.  The application Ref 116308/FH/2017, dated 16 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 10 October 2017.  The development proposed is a first storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect on the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of the occupants of an adjacent residential property with particular reference to privacy. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a two storey detached house situated in a predominantly residential area. It has a single storey lean to rear extension which I understand was built under permitted development. Most properties in the locality are pairs of semi-detached houses of similar design which creates a uniform and attractive residential townscape. I observed at my site visit that some properties in the area have been extended and altered in various ways, including single and two storey extensions. 4. The site is situated at the end of a row of mainly semi-detached houses and on a corner plot adjacent to where Bankside Road turns a ninety degree corner. It has landscaped gardens to the side and rear. The boundary alongside the appeal site is relatively low and as such the rear of the property is open and prominent within the street scene. 5. The proposed first floor rear extension would be built above the existing single storey rear extension along the width of the existing house. It would have a shallow hipped roof with an eaves height of approximately five metres and a ridge height of approximately seven metres. The extension would project approximately four metres from the rear wall of the original house. It is my understanding that the extension would incorporate materials to match the existing house. Appeal Decision APP/B4215/D/17/3187386 2 6. Although the extension would be set in from the boundary with the highway and would have a ridge height lower than the main house it would be seen as a large and dominant addition to the property in a prominent location. In its relatively open position it would appear as an unsympathetic, incongruous and intrusive addition to the house, harmful to the integrity of the property, the street scene and the residential area, generally. 7. Therefore on this issue I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and would conflict with Policies SP1 and DM1 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document Adopted July 2012 and Saved Policies DC1.1, DC1.2 and DC1.3 of The Manchester Plan The Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester Adopted July 1995 (the UDP). Among other objectives these seek to ensure that development makes a positive contribution to neighbourhoods including creating well designed places that enhance character and have regard to siting, layout, scale, form and massing. Residential extensions should have regard to the general character of the property and the overall appearance of the street scene and should not be excessively large or bulky. Living conditions 8. To the immediate rear of the appeal site is No 26 Norview Drive, which is a detached two storey house. The private amenity space of No 26 backs directly onto the appeal site. The rear elevation of the proposed first floor extension would be only approximately six metres from the shared boundary and would have two bedroom windows facing directly towards the private amenity space. 9. Although there is some landscaping along the shared boundary and No 26 has a relatively large amenity area for a property of its size the level of direct overlooking from the bedroom windows is significant. I recognise that there is a degree of mutual overlooking at present and that it is inevitable that in residential areas some overlooking may occur. However, the close and direct relationship between the proposed first floor bedroom windows would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking and consequent loss of privacy for the occupants of No 26 Norview Drive. 10. I have no evidence of similar levels of harmful overlooking in the vicinity of the site and in any case I have determined the current appeal on its own merits in the light of the development plan and other material considerations. 11. On this issue I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of an adjacent residential property with particular reference to privacy. Therefore it would conflict with Policies DC1.1 and DC1.2 of the UDP which, among other objectives seek to ensure that applications for extensions to residential properties have regard to the effect upon the amenity of neighbouring occupants and do not create undue loss of privacy. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above and taking into account other matters raised I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and that the appeal should be dismissed. Alastair Phillips INSPECTOR