Two storey side extension and proposed porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 December 2017 by Matthew Birkinshaw BA(Hons) Msc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 18th December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/17/3188143 77 The Gills, Otley, LS21 2BY  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 Carter-Hill against the decision of Leeds City Council.  The application Ref 17/05143/FU, dated 1 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 25 September 2017.  The development proposed is a two storey side extension and proposed porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, having particular regard to outlook and sunlight. Reasons 3. The appeal relates to a semi-detached property with a driveway running down the side of the house. A 2-storey side extension is proposed over part of the driveway to create additional living space at ground and first floor level. 4. Due to the layout of the street the neighbouring pair of semi-detached houses, 79 and 81 The Gills, are perpendicular to the host property. The rear elevation of no.79 would therefore face directly towards the side of the extension at a distance of approximately 9.8m. Because of this layout and orientation, combined with the size and proximity of the extension, it would result in an overbearing and dominating form of development from the adjacent patio and rear-facing ground floor windows at no.79. Although there is a detached garage on the shared boundary, it is only a relatively modest flat-roof structure. It would therefore do very little to mitigate the imposing visual impact of a 2-storey extension in the location proposed. 5. In reaching this view I appreciate that no.79 has been extended previously, and that the nearest windows facing the extension are secondary openings. The recommended distance of 12m between a main window and blank side elevation in the Leeds Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (‘SPD’) therefore does not apply. Nevertheless, the size of the extension and its proximity to no.79 would still lead to a visually intrusive form of development from the adjacent patio and area of outdoor seating. Based on observations at my site visit it would also appear as a large and overbearing addition from the small rear garden and dining room window at 81 The Gills. Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/17/3188143 2 6. Furthermore, the proposed extension would be sited roughly south-west of the rear garden at no.81. As the sun moves round later in the day its size, scale and siting would therefore bock out sunlight and overshadow parts of the garden. When taking into account that the outdoor space at the back of the house is relatively small and steep, even a modest loss of sunlight would limit the occupants use and enjoyment of the garden. Combined with its overbearing visual impact, the cumulative effect of the proposal would cause significant harm to their standard of living. 7. In summary, I therefore conclude that due to the size, scale and proximity of the extension to 79 and 81 The Gills, the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring residents from a loss of outlook and sunlight. As a result, it conflicts with Leeds Unitary Development Plan Review Policy GP5 and Leeds Core Strategy Policy P10, both of which seek to ensure that development avoids a loss of residential amenity. For the same reasons the proposal is also contrary to the Council’s Householder Design Guide SPD. It states that proposals which harm the residential amenity of neighbours through excessive overshadowing or overdominance will be strongly resisted. By failing to achieve a good standard of amenity for existing occupiers of land and buildings the scheme is also contrary to one of the National Planning Policy Framework’s Core Planning Principles. Other Matters 8. The Council has not refused planning permission for reasons relating to design, character and appearance of the host property, highway safety or the provision of outdoor space. Based on the submitted evidence I find no reasons to disagree. However, these factors do not justify allowing the appeal given the harm that has been identified to the living conditions of neighbouring residents. 9. Finally, as part of the appeal scheme a new porch is also proposed on the front elevation. Although no concerns have been raised regarding this element of the proposal the appellant has not indicated that they would wish to implement it in isolation, or that it is severable from the proposed side extension. I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Matthew Birkinshaw INSPECTOR