First floor side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 December 2017 by Helen Hockenhull BA(Hons) B.Pl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 09 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P4225/D/17/3189792 2 Kings Road, Rochdale OL16 5HW  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 Haq Nawaz against the decision of Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/01004/HOUS, dated 18 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 13 October 2017.  The development proposed is a first floor side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are:  the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area;  the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling with particular regard to overlooking and loss of privacy. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property forms a semi-detached two storey house located in a corner position at the junction of Kings Road and Kingsway, Rochdale. The character of the area is residential with traditionally built mostly semi-detached two storey dwellings constructed in brick with a tiled roof. 4. The appeal property is generally consistent with No. 4 Kings Road, the adjoining semi-detached house. Both properties have single storey side extensions and a hipped roof so that the pair of dwellings has a generally balanced appearance. 5. It is proposed to provide a first floor extension, around 3.9 metres wide and 7.9 metres deep. The proposal would align with the front and rear walls of the existing house and be constructed in matching materials. The ridge and eaves height of the roof would match that of the original dwelling however the proposal would replace the existing hipped roof with a gable roof design. Appeal Decision APP/P4225/D/17/3189792 2 6. Policies DM1 and P3 of the Rochdale Core Strategy (2016) require all development proposals including extensions to be of a high quality of design. The Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in figures 10 and 11, illustrate that side extensions should be set back from the front wall of the existing house and the ridge line should be below that of the original dwelling. Paragraph 5.1 of the SPD explains that a proposal should be designed to be in keeping with the host dwelling and generally be subservient to it. 7. The appeal proposal would be flush with the existing wall of the house and the roof would be the same height. It would therefore be at odds with the above guidance. The proposed extension would have a bulky and overly dominant appearance and would not appear subservient to the original dwelling. 8. Furthermore the proposal provides a gable roof design replacing the existing hipped roof. Whilst I accept that there are both hipped and gable roofs in the local area, there is a consistency of roof design in the pairs of semi-detached dwellings. The appeal proposal would result in the semi-detached pair having an asymmetrical roof design creating an unbalanced appearance. The site is in a prominent corner position. I consider that the proposed extension would be visually intrusive in the street scene and form an incongruous addition adversely affecting the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. 9. The proposal would therefore be in conflict with Policies DM1 and P3 of the Rochdale Core Strategy (2016) and the guidance in the Residential Development SPD. These documents aim to secure high quality design and are consistent with paragraph 17 and section 7 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which has similar objectives. Living conditions 10. The proposed extension would be sited approximately 3 metres from the side boundary with No. 79 Kingsway. The rear first floor window of the proposal would overlook the side garden and the side gable of the neighbouring property. There are however no windows serving habitable rooms on this side elevation. Furthermore the separation distance between the proposed extension and the side windows of the neighbouring house would exceed the Council’s minimum requirements. Consequently there would be no issues of overlooking of habitable room windows or loss of privacy. 11. There would however be overlooking to the large side garden of No. 79. I note that the Council’s Residential Development SPD requires a minimum space standard of 10.5 metres between a principal window and a rear boundary. This separation distance is not achieved by the existing house and would certainly not be achieved by the proposed extension. 12. However, in this case the side garden area to the neighbouring property is subdivided into two parts by a garden fence of around 1.8 metres in height. The part of the garden closest to the appeal property comprises hardstanding for parking vehicles and an area of grass. It is open to view from the public footpath on Kingsway and therefore does not provide a private amenity space for the occupants. Whilst the appeal scheme would overlook this area, it would Appeal Decision APP/P4225/D/17/3189792 3 not result in any significant reduction in the level of privacy currently enjoyed by the neighbouring occupants in this part of the garden. I therefore consider that the proposal would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring house in this regard. 13. The Council has expressed concern that as a result of its siting close to the side boundary, the appeal proposal would have an overbearing impact. However having regard to the angled relationship of the appeal dwelling and the neighbouring house, together with the separation distance between the two properties, I consider that the proposal would not be overbearing or have an oppressive impact. 14. The appeal scheme would cause no material harm to the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring house. The proposal would therefore comply with Policy DM1 of the Core Strategy and the guidance in the Council’s Residential Development SPD. These policies aim to ensure that development proposals do not adversely affect the amenity of residents. Conclusion 15. I have found that the appeal proposal would cause no harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. Whilst this weighs in favour of the scheme, it does not outweigh the harm I have found to the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. 16. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I dismiss this appeal. Helen Hockenhull INSPECTOR