Single storey rear extension to enlarge a kitchen/dining area, constructed from materials to match existing

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 February 2018 by Andy Harwood CMS MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U3935/D/17/3190283 4 Tydeman Street, Gorse Hill, Swindon, Wiltshire SN2 8AU  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph A.4 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).  The appeal is made by Mr John Pearce against the decision of Swindon Borough Council.  The application Ref S/PRIOH/17/1247, dated 31 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 5 September 2017.  The development proposed is a single storey rear extension to enlarge a kitchen/dining area, constructed from materials to match existing. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter and Main Issue 2. The provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), under Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A requires the local planning authority to assess the proposed development solely on the basis of its impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. My determination of this appeal has been made in the same manner. Following the Council’s consultation, there was an objection which triggered the need for prior approval. 3. The application declaration is dated 13 September 2017 but that post-dates the Council’s decision and must be erroneous. I have therefore used the date for the application set out on the appeal form. 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions and therefore the amenity of adjoining premises at No 2 Tydeman Street with particular regard to outlook and light. Reasons 5. The appeal site is within a tight knit residential area and is a mid-terraced dwelling with a narrow rear garden. The dwelling has a close relationship to the 2 side neighbours although the deep rear garden allows much more space between the back of the dwelling and the dwellings to the rear. 6. The proposal would involve the removal of a modest conservatory that is Appeal Decision APP/U3935/D/17/3190283 2 positioned between an existing kitchen extension and the boundary with No 2. Part of the kitchen extension would be demolished as well. The replacement structure is proposed to extend 5.84m to the rear of No 4 and this would cover the full width of that dwelling and would be very close to both side boundaries. The proposal would extend around 3m beyond the existing single storey elements at the rear of both No 2 and No 6. 7. The proposal would form a substantial additional enclosure along both side boundaries. With respect to No 2, this would result in the creation of what would feel like a tightly enclosed space between the boundary and the long rearward extension on the southern side of that garden. This would have the effect of obstructing the outlook to the left when looking from the rear kitchen window of No 2 which is currently open given the low height of the existing timber fence. The proposal would bring about a greater sense of being hemmed in by the building for occupiers of that room as well for people enjoying the narrow decked area immediately alongside the boundary. I recognise that the hemming in of the kitchen and garden at No 2 in this way would in part be due to the ‘L’ shaped existing extension at that same property. However I have to deal with the proposal on the merits and circumstances that exist at this time. The garden to the north side of the single storey extension at No 6 is more open than that to the rear of No 2. The proposal whilst enclosing one side of the garden, interrupting the outlook from the rear window of No 6 would not have a significant impact upon the occupiers of that property. 8. The appellant’s evidence shows that the proposed extension would increase over-shadowing of the rear kitchen window and decked area within No 2 in the early morning around the time of the Autumnal equinox. On that particular day, there would be no overshadowing by 11.25 hours. However the effect upon direct sunlight reaching the kitchen and garden in the early morning around that time of year, would reduce the enjoyment of the kitchen for those neighbours. No 6 is to the north of the appeal site and would not therefore be affected in the same way. 9. The proposed 2.0m high fence and alternative, reduced depth permitted development extension would also produce some impacts upon the residents within No 2. I acknowledge that those possible developments may take place even if this appeal is dismissed. However that possible fallback position does not outweigh the harm that would occur due to the size of the proposed rear extension which would have a substantially greater impact upon those adjoining residents. 10. In relation to the main issue, the proposal would have a harmful effect upon the living conditions of adjoining premises at No 2 Tydeman Street and therefore an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of that property. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above and having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Andy Harwood INSPECTOR