Single storey rear kitchen extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 April 2018 by Chris Couper BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13th April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Q4625/D/17/3190763 144 Sandy Hill Road, Solihull B90 2EX  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.  The appeal is made by Mr Andrew Fellows against the decision of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref PL/2017/02796/PNH, dated 18 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 29 November 2017.  The development proposed is a single storey rear kitchen extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3 and Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph A4 of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 for a single storey rear kitchen extension at 144 Sandy Hill Road, Solihull B90 2EX in accordance with the terms of the application Ref PL/2017/02796/PNH, dated 18 October 2017, and the plans submitted with it. Procedural Matters 2. The provisions of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (‘GPDO’), require 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. Consequently, whilst the occupants of an adjacent property have objected raising a number of other matters, my determination of this appeal has been made in the same manner. 3. I have taken the spelling of the road name from the appeal form, which is consistent with other documents, including the site plan. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a semi-detached property with a single storey, flat- roofed rear projection. To the rear the attached property at no. 142 has living room patio doors fairly close to the boundary with no. 144, and which lead to decking spanning the width of the plot. It also has a kitchen window and side- facing glazed door, which are further from the boundary with no. 144, along with first floor windows. Appeal Decision APP/Q4625/D/17/3190763 2 5. The proposed extension would be longer, and would be sited slightly closer to the boundary with no. 142, than the projection it would replace. However, its pitched roof would slope down to the sides, and its eaves would be significantly lower than the flat roof of the existing projection. Only the very top part of its side wall would project above the height of the existing tall timber fence on the boundary with no. 142. 6. Given the proposal’s scale and form, and in the context of the boundary treatment and the existing rear projection at no. 144, although the scheme would be visible from no. 142’s patio doors, kitchen window and rear decking, it would not have a significant overbearing impact on the occupants of that property. As, viewed from the ground floor rear openings and wide rear decking of no. 142, the proposed extension would be located to one side, and would be partially hidden by the fence, the principal outlook from those areas down its long rear garden would not be significantly impacted. Looking towards the site from its first floor rear windows the outlook would be largely over the roof of the proposed extension. 7. From the evidence before me, notwithstanding the scheme’s greater length compared to the existing projection, its low eaves height and its roof form would ensure that any overshadowing of no. 142, and any loss of light within its living room and kitchen, would be limited. 8. The proposed rooflights in the extension’s sloping roof would be sited close to the host property’s first floor rear wall. In that location any view upwards towards no. 142’s first floor windows would be at a very oblique angle. As the kitchen extension would have large glazed openings in its rear face, the rooflights would not provide the room’s principal outlook. They would not therefore result in significant overlooking of no. 142. 9. As the dwelling at no. 146 is separated from this site by an access passageway, having regard to the scheme’s siting and form, the impact on those occupants would be very limited. 10. The scheme would not conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework requirement for planning to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. I have also considered the scheme against the development plan, but only insofar as it assists in assessing the impact of extensions on the amenity of adjacent premises. Policy P14 of the Solihull Local Plan 2013 sets out in very general terms that the Council will permit development only if it respects the amenity of occupiers and would be a ‘good neighbour’. The scheme would not conflict with that approach. 11. Whilst the Solihull House Extension Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document 2010 (‘SPD’) is somewhat out of date as it refers to the General Permitted Development Order 2005 (as amended), it sets out general principles, and describes a 45 degree code that may be applied in order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring dwellings. 12. Drawn from the nearest ground floor habitable room window at no. 142, the 45 degree code would be breached. However, the SPD notes that the code may not be appropriate in all cases, and that single storey extensions will usually be considered with greater flexibility. For the above reasons, I am satisfied that this scheme would not harmfully impact the amenity of adjoining premises. Appeal Decision APP/Q4625/D/17/3190763 3 Conclusion 13. Having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval granted. The planning permission granted for the single storey rear kitchen extension under Article 3 and Schedule 1, Part 1, Class A is subject to the following standard conditions which are set out in the GPDO at A.4.(13), A.4.(14) and A.4.(15). These specify that the development shall be completed on or before 30th May 2019; that the developer shall notify the local planning authority in writing of the completion of the development as soon as reasonably practicable after completion; and that such notification shall include the name of the developer, the address or location of the development, and the date of completion. 14. The GPDO requires development to be carried out in accordance with the details submitted, and, for Part 1 Class A, that exterior materials shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the existing dwelling. This dwelling includes render on its front face, and the Council’s suggested conditions at 11.b and 11.c of the appeal questionnaire are therefore unnecessary. Chris Couper INSPECTOR