Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 February 2018 by S J Lee BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23rd February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P3040/D/17/3189566 55 Camelot Street, Ruddington, Nottingham NG11 6AS  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 Rebecca Pavier against the decision of Rushcliffe Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/01777/FUL, dated 26 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 1 September 2017.  The development proposed is single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupants of 53 Camelot Street, with particular regard to outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal relates to an end terrace property in a predominantly residential area. The development would project from the rear wall of the host dwelling by a distance of around 7.35 metres. This would extend roughly to the rear boundary of what is a relatively short rear garden. As a result of the inset of No 55, the extension would project beyond the rear elevation of No 53 by around 5.5 metres. This would result in a 3.1 metre high building extending the full length of the garden of No 53 very near to the common boundary. The extension would be considerably higher than the current boundary treatment and would not be screened in any significant way. 4. When viewed from the rear ground floor windows or garden of No 53, the development would appear as an unduly large, bulky and intrusive addition to the host dwelling. The depth, height and proximity of the extension to the common boundary would create a significant feeling of enclosure and confinement for the occupants of No 53 which would tangibly diminish the enjoyment of the rear ground floor rooms and the garden space. The adverse impact on the outlook from, and enjoyment of, the garden in particular would be exacerbated to a considerable extent by the presence of a large detached garage building situated on the opposite boundary. The cumulative adverse impact on the sense of enclosure on what appears to be a relatively small garden for No 53 would be significant. Appeal Decision APP/P3040/D/17/3189566 2 5. I find therefore that the development would have an unacceptable overbearing impact on the living conditions of the occupants of No 53. Consequently, there would be conflict with Policy 10 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy which seeks to ensure development does not have an adverse impact on the living conditions of existing residents. Other Matters 6. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The appellant has drawn my attention to an existing approval for an extension under permitted development rights. This would extend 6 metres from the rear of No 55. There is nothing before me to suggest that the permitted proposal is not capable of being implemented or that the appellant has no intention of carrying it out. As such, I consider it represents a realistic fallback position. 7. The main difference between what is proposed and what is permitted is that the appeal scheme would be around 1.3 metres longer and would extend the full length of the garden. The appellant considers the additional length of the proposal would have no greater impact on living conditions than that already approved. I disagree with this assertion. In the context of the relative length of the gardens, a difference of around 1.3 metres would make a significant difference to the individual and cumulative effect of the development. 8. The shorter length of the permitted scheme would provide a gap at the end of the garden of both No 53 and No 55. This would therefore provide some degree of respite from the total enclosure of this side of the garden of No 53. I therefore consider that the fallback position would cause materially less harm than the proposal. As a result, I do not consider the fallback position to outweigh the conflict with policy identified above. 9. The appellant argues that the area of land that would remain between the garden fence and extension in the permitted scheme would be too small to be useful. However, the scale of this leftover space would be the result of the choice made by the appellant to build an extension of this size and thus provides little weight in favour of the proposal. 10. I note that the occupants of No 53 have not objected to either the original planning application or the appeal. Nonetheless, even if the current occupants are not concerned, I must have regard to the long term effect on living conditions, including those of possible future occupants. This does not therefore alter my conclusion that the extension before me would have an unacceptable impact. Conclusion 11. I find that the development would conflict with the policies of the development plan. The material considerations considered above do not indicate that a decision other than in accordance with the development plan should be made in this instance. For this reason, and taking all relevant matters in to account, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. S J Lee INSPECTOR