Extensions and alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 February 2018 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U1430/D/17/3189038 Cherry Berries, Woodland Way, Fairlight, East Sussex, TN35 4AU.  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 Ms V. Turner against the decision of Rother District Council.  The application Ref RR/2017/1792/P, dated 3 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 28 September 2017.  The development proposed is extensions and alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of number 10 Knowle Road in terms of its potential to result in overlooking leading to a loss of privacy, appear overbearing and detrimental to light and outlook. Reasons 3. Cherry Berries is a detached bungalow located within a residential development on an open corner plot at the junction of Woodland Way and Knowle Road. Due to the topography of the area, this dwelling sits in an elevated position in relation to number 10 Knowle Road and its immediate neighbours to the east. 4. The appellant proposes the comprehensive reordering and extension of the dwelling. The development includes a single storey extension at the north end of the property, the replacement of the existing conservatory with a single storey addition linking to the existing detached garage, the construction of a veranda along part of the rear elevation, formation of a new hardstanding adjacent to the existing drive, the construction of a porch, insertion of rooflights, alterations to the existing fenestration and the erection of a trellis on top of the existing rear boundary fence. 5. The ground falls away quite steeply from the northern end of the existing bungalow such that the north wall of the addition would appear tall, making the dwelling prominent when viewed from the public domain. However, the design proposes a hipped roof and an area of new planting is also planned along the new flank wall to soften its appearance, a matter that could be conditioned if I were minded to allow the appeal. Given these considerations, the building as extended would not, in my judgement, appear so prominent as to cause harm Appeal Decision APP/U1430/D/17/3189038 2 to the character and appearance of the area and indeed, due to the balance provided to the overall composition by the proposed hip roof, may well appear more attractive than the current gable wall configuration. 6. Number 10 Knowle Road is also a detached bungalow. As identified above it sits at a much lower level than Cherry Berries. At its western end there are two bedrooms, the principal windows of which face either south or north. However, both rooms also each have a narrow secondary window overlooking its side garden and due to the layout of the development the open side/front garden of the appeal property. 7. I note that the north east corner of the extension would only be 1.0 metre or so from the property’s boundary to number 10 Knowle Road. However, given the depth of the proposed extension, the relationship of one dwelling to another at this point and the fact that the windows in the side wall of number 10 Knowle Road are secondary, I am not persuaded that the extension itself would appear either so overbearing or result in such a loss of light or outlook to the bedrooms as to be detrimental to the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling. 8. The rear garden of number 10 is terraced such that only a small area of rear garden adjoining its southern boundary is roughly the same level as the bottom of the rear garden of Cherry Berries. The remainder of the garden and in particular that immediately adjoining the rear of the dwelling is at a lower level. 9. Given my observations on site, the relative levels and the existing configuration of the neighbouring gardens, I do not consider that the proposed veranda, particularly if fitted with the proposed privacy screens, would result in overlooking leading to a loss of privacy of the occupiers of number 10 Knowle Road or its neighbours to the east. Further, I am not persuaded that the proposed increase in the height of the fence by the addition of trellising, which by its nature has an open texture, would impinge in any material way on the living conditions of the occupiers of number 10 Knowle Road. 10. However, given the relationship of the dwelling as extended to number 10 Knowle Road, I consider that the introduction of French doors along with a Juliette balcony in the eastern wall of the proposed rear bedroom would lead to the perception if not actual overlooking of their private rear amenity space leading to a loss of privacy. The addition of a trellis, as proposed, on top of the existing fence would to some extent mitigate against this concern but in my judgement, given its likely open texture, it would not address this matter completely. 11. The appellant also proposes the demolition of the existing conservatory and the erection of a new single storey addition to provide a swim spa, the formation of new hardstanding to accommodate a caravan next to the existing drive, construction of a new front porch, the introduction of roof lights and alterations to the existing fenestration. 12. Concerns have been raised in respect of the possibility of noise pollution arising from the equipment associated from the swim spa. However, given the scale of the proposal I believe, as the Council suggested in its evidence, these concerns could be addressed by condition if the development were to be allowed. Further, third parties have drawn my attention to a covenant that Appeal Decision APP/U1430/D/17/3189038 3 prohibits the parking of caravans on this development, however this is not a planning matter. Subject to a condition in respect of the pool equipment, the Council raises no objection to these elements of the proposal. From what I have seen and read I find these parts of the overall proposal to be acceptable. Conclusion 13. I conclude that the proposed construction of the veranda, alterations to the boundary fence, demolition of the existing conservatory and the erection of a new single storey addition to accommodate the swim spa, the formation of new caravan hardstanding, construction of a new front porch, the insertion of new roof lights and alterations to the existing fenestration, would not in themselves have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. 14. I have found the proposed extension at the northern end of the bungalow to be generally acceptable. However, due to the proposed French doors and Juliette balcony, notwithstanding the addition of trellis on top of the existing fence, it would result in the potential for overlooking and a loss of privacy. Accordingly, the proposed development would cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of number 10 Knowle Road. 15. I have found aspects of the development acceptable. However, given the comprehensive nature of the proposal to extend and reorder the property, I do not consider that the various parts of the proposals are clearly physically and functionally independent and therefore I can only conclude that the development as a whole would cause harm to residential living conditions. Accordingly, to allow it would be contrary to Policies OSS4 (ii) and EN3 (i) (ii) of Rother Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted September 2014) and saved Policy HG8 of the Rother District Local Plan (Adopted July 2006) as they relate, along with other things, to the protection of residential living conditions. Overall Conclusions 16. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, and as the various parts of the proposal are not clearly severable, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Philip Willmer INSPECTOR