Erection of a single-storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 January 2018 by Elaine Benson BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 05 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Q4625/D/17/3188134 41 Hazelhurst Road, Castle Bromwich, Birmingham B36 0BH  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 Mohammed Yamin against the decision of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref PL/2017/02163/MINFH0, dated 15 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 September 2017.  The development proposed is erection of a single-storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 43 Hazelhurst Road (No 43). Reasons 3. It is proposed to erect a pitched roof extension across the rear elevation of the host property, No 41. The plans state that it would project 5m from the main rear wall of the house and would be 4m high at the ridge. The Council indicate that it would be 3m high at the eaves. On the backs of Nos 41 and 43 are narrow brick stores which project around 1.4 m from the rear of the property and have a height of around 2.7 m. 4. In accordance with its Supplementary Planning Document House Extension Guidelines (SPD), the Council applies the ‘45-Degree Guide’ to determine whether a proposal will affect the amount of light reaching neighbouring properties and the outlook from them. In assessing the effect of the proposed extension on No 43, the Council states that it would not significantly breach the 45 degree sight line taken from the nearest habitable window. There are no reasons to disagree. It is also necessary to take into account No 43’s brick store which is between its ground floor rear window and No 41. Having considered all of these factors and the space between the 2 houses, I am satisfied that there would be no loss of daylight to No 43 such as to harm the living conditions of its occupiers. 5. However, I have also considered the orientations of the two houses and the sun’s path. I share the Council’s view that the extension would result in a loss of sunlight to and would cause overshadowing of the rear of No 43 and its patio Appeal Decision APP/Q4625/D/17/3188134 2 and other parts of the garden nearest the house. Thus the living conditions of the occupiers would be harmed. Whilst the brick store prevents some sunlight reaching the rear window of No 43, the proposed extension would be significantly deeper and would have a correspondingly greater harmful impact on the neighbouring property. 6. I have also assessed the outlook from No 43’s garden. The eaves height of the extension would be similar to the height to the existing store. However, the rearward projection of the extension would be significantly deeper and it would run in line with the shared boundary for some distance. The mass of the proposed development would also be visually dominant above the boundary fence. These 2 factors would combine to produce an overbearing effect which would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 43. 7. For the reasons I have set out, the proposed extension would conflict with Policy P14 of the Solihull Local Plan 2013 which, amongst other things, permits neighbourly development which respects the amenity of existing and proposed occupiers. There would be further conflict with the similar aims of the Council’s SPD. The appeal proposal would also run counter to the objective of the National Planning Policy Framework to ensure that new development secures a good standard of amenity for the existing and future occupiers of land and buildings. Other matters 8. Comments were made about the effects of the existing loft extension at No 41 on overlooking and on-street parking. However, the loft extension exists and it and the issues raised are not matters before me in this appeal which relates only to the single storey rear extension. The appeal application is a resubmission of a scheme which was previously refused planning permission by the Council. Nonetheless, that does not affect my conclusions. Conclusion 9. For the reasons I have set out the proposed extension would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 43. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed. Elaine Benson INSPECTOR