Two storey side extension and full width rear box dormer

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 January 2018 by Paul Singleton BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 13 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/C2708/D/17/3187946 42 Manse Way, Sutton-in-Craven, Keighley BD20 8BX  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 Joan Raby against the decision of Craven District Council.  The application Ref 2017/18343/HH, dated 7 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 25 September 2017.  The development proposed is two storey side extension and full width rear box dormer. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent dwelling, number 7 The Hawthorns, with regard to outlook. Reasons 3. The proposed extension would reduce the gap between the side gable of No. 42 Manse Way and the rear elevation of No. 7 The Hawthorns from about 18 metres (m) to about 13.6m and would bring the new gable wall in close proximity to the rear windows of No. 7. 4. The electricity substation, which extends to about 3m in height, would provide a significant degree of screening to the front part of that new gable but about 60% of its length would be in direct view from the rear windows to No. 7. Because of the asymmetrical roof pitch of the appeal property, the maximum height at the apex of the new gable would be towards the right of the available view with the roof then reducing to single storey height at the left edge of that view. 5. A proposal for a 4.4m extension of the existing built form of the appeal property could, possibly, result in a satisfactory relationship with No.7, notwithstanding that the two buildings would be much closer together. The proposal for a box dormer extending to the new gable of the appeal building would, however, substantially erode the benefit that would otherwise be derived from the reducing roof height on the gable elevation. The dormer would add nearly 2m in height to that elevation and result in a much taller and more solid elevation when seen from the rear windows to No. 7. For this reasons the proposal would result in an elevation which is dominant and Appeal Decision APP/C2708/D/17/3187946 2 overbearing when seen from those rear windows and an increased sense of enclosure to the rear garden of the neighbouring dwelling. 6. The appellant has made reference to planning standards applied in other local authority areas but has not submitted any evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would comply with any guidance adopted by Craven District Council or with its established practice in considering such proposals. The extension carried out at No. 4 Roman Garth is not directly comparable as that side extension does not extend over the full depth of the original building. 7. I find that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 7 The Hawthorns with regard to their outlook. For this reasons it conflicts with Policy H20 of the Craven District (Outside of the Yorkshire Dales National Park) Local Plan 1999 which states that permission will be granted for the extension of an existing dwelling provided that it would not result in any unacceptable loss of amenity for neighbouring residents. It also conflicts with one of the core principles set out under paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires that planning should always seek a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupants of buildings. 8. I note the concerns raised by objectors but agree with the Council that the proposal would not be out of keeping with the prevailing character of the houses in Manse Way. I also find that, subject to the first floor window proposed in the new side elevation being glazed with obscured glass, there would be no unacceptable loss of privacy for any neighbouring residents. Conclusion 9. For the reasons set out above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Paul Singleton INSPECTOR