Single storey side extension to replace existing store

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 March 2018 by Jillian Rann BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4718/D/17/3191961 16 Hall Lane, Highburton, Huddersfield, W. Yorks HD8 0QW  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 Richard Gill against the decision of Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 2017/62/92537/E, dated 19 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 27 October 2017.  The development proposed is a single storey side extension to replace existing store. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey side extension to replace existing store at 16 Hall Lane, Highburton, Huddersfield, W. Yorks HD8 0QW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2017/62/92537/E, dated 19 July 2017, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule. Procedural matter 2. Although the development is described as a single storey extension, I note from the submitted drawings that there would be a small increase in floorspace at first floor level within its roof. However, given the incidental and integral nature and limited scale of these works, I do not consider that this requires any amendment to the description of the development in this instance. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of the occupants of 8 Hall Lane with regard to outlook and daylight. Reasons Living conditions 4. The appeal property is located at the end of a terrace of cottages which is part of a small close-knit residential courtyard off Hall Lane. The property at the end of the neighbouring terrace, 8 Hall Lane, faces the side of the appeal site. 5. The appeal property has an attached outbuilding to the side, which the proposed extension would replace. The side wall of this existing structure sits on the boundary with No. 8 and varies in height along this boundary, with a maximum height of around 4.1m at the front and lower eaves to the rear, as confirmed in the appellant’s submission and referred to in the Council’s report. Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/D/17/3191961 2 6. No. 8 is accessed from a narrow path which separates its main entrance door from the existing outbuilding only a short distance away. The elevation of No. 8 facing the appeal site also contains a secondary window in the rear corner of the ground floor lounge and, on the first floor, two landing windows in the original building, and bathroom windows in a later extension. 7. The development would replace the existing side wall with a new wall of consistent height, set in slightly from the boundary. Although this new wall would be slightly higher than the rear corner of the existing outbuilding, its front section would be considerably lower than the equivalent section of the outbuilding’s existing side wall. Overall I therefore consider that the immediate effect of the proposed side wall in terms of its massing and presence would be reduced compared to the existing boundary wall, particularly when viewed from the ground floor entrance door, window, and path alongside the building. 8. I note that at its tallest point the extension would be higher than the existing outbuilding. However as the roof of the extension would rise away from the boundary with No. 8, this taller section would be set further from the boundary than the closest, tallest section of the existing outbuilding, which is on the boundary itself. The taller roof beyond, and any additional massing arising from this, would also be viewed against the backdrop of the higher 2 storey gable of the existing house, thereby diminishing its effect on the outlook from No. 8. 9. The roof of the proposed extension would be visible from the first floor landing windows in the original building at No. 8, which I observed at my visit to be the only source of light to this area. However, the removal of the highest part of the existing outbuilding, to the right when viewed from these windows, would open up the outlook and allow greater potential for light penetration from that direction. This would offset the effects of the additional height of the extension, which would be further away from these windows. Therefore, I also do not consider that the proposed extension would have a significantly greater overall effect on the outlook from, or light levels to, this landing area compared to the existing outbuilding. 10. Although the extension to No. 8 has two first floor windows facing the appeal site, most of this extension sits forward of the front elevation of the appeal property, and these windows mainly look out along the appeal site’s drive at present. The front part of the proposed extension, closest to these windows, would be lower than the existing boundary wall at this point, and the roof of this front section would be similar to that of the appeal property’s existing front extension, slightly further away. I therefore do not consider that the outlook from, or light levels to these windows would be significantly or detrimentally affected by the proposals. 11. The rear wall of the extension would be visible in oblique views from the secondary ground floor lounge window at No. 8. However, in view of its separation from, and orientation in relation to this window, I do not consider that in overall terms it would seem so high or dominant that it would appear more oppressive than the existing structure to be replaced, or that it would significantly reduce light levels to this area. The lounge’s primary light source, to the opposite side of the property, would be unaffected by the proposals. 12. I note that a previous appeal for a two storey extension in this position was dismissed. However, the previous appeal related to a larger two storey extension whose side wall adjacent to No. 8 would have been taller than any Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/D/17/3191961 3 part of the existing outbuilding which it would replace. In contrast, the current proposal relates to a single storey extension whose side wall along the boundary with No. 8 would be somewhat lower than that of the previous proposal, and which would give less of an impression of overall massing than the previous proposal when viewed from facing windows in this neighbouring property. Having had due regard to the previous appeal decision, I am therefore satisfied that the current proposal is materially different for these reasons. 13. For the reasons set out above, I consider that the extension would not appear significantly more dominant, overbearing or oppressive than the existing outbuilding or have a significantly greater effect on the levels of daylight reaching No. 8. I therefore consider that the extension would not conflict with Policy D2 of the Kirklees Unitary Development Plan Saved 2007, or with paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seek to protect the living conditions of existing and future residents. Other matters 14. This courtyard of terraced cottages forms a positive and characteristic component of this part of Highburton Conservation Area. There is some variety in their design and materials, and a number have been sympathetically extended. Although the existing outbuilding appears to be an original feature of the courtyard, I do not consider the building itself to have any particular merits warranting its retention. The extension would be built in stone and slate to match the existing property, and would remain subservient to it in scale, even when taken together with the existing front extension. I therefore consider that the development would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 15. The proposed extension would be set slightly in from the boundary with No. 8 and would have guttering along its side elevation, which is not present to the side of the existing outbuilding. Overall I do not consider that the proposals would have significant implications in terms of additional snow and ice falling onto the adjacent path. Possible damage to property during construction and the potential need for agreement under the Party Wall Act are potential aspects of all development proposals and would be private matters between the parties involved. 16. References have been made to inaccuracies and omissions in the appeal documents in relation to various aspects of the appeal site and No. 8. I have visited the site and viewed it from internal and external areas of No. 8, and am satisfied that I have seen all I need to in order to make a full and proper assessment of the proposal, and that the relevant details of the proposal before me remain correct. 17. Reference has been made to guidance for single storey extensions, however this appears to relate to the parameters for ‘permitted development’. Notwithstanding any such general references, the appellant has sought permission for the specific development as proposed and I have determined this appeal on its planning merits, as an extension associated with the use of the property as a dwellinghouse, and with regard to adopted policies and other relevant guidance as indicated. I also have no reason to attach any material weight to any personal circumstances of the appellant. Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/D/17/3191961 4 Conditions 18. I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans, in the interests of certainty, and a condition requiring matching materials, to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 19. In view of the extension’s very close proximity to No. 8 and the potentially significant increase in overlooking which could arise from any future further windows or other openings being inserted in its side elevation or roof, I consider it necessary to restrict the insertion of any such new openings in this instance. I have therefore attached a condition to this effect. As the rear elevation does not directly face any gardens or neighbouring windows in close proximity, I do not consider it necessary to extend this restriction to the rear elevation as has been suggested by the Council. 20. Following concerns from the occupier of No. 8 regarding the potential installation of ventilation equipment in the extension, further comment has been sought from the Council and the appellant on this matter. Given its proximity to No. 8, I consider that the installation of mechanical ventilation equipment in the side or rear elevation or roof of the extension has the potential to create noise and disturbance for residents of this neighbouring property. I therefore consider it necessary to restrict the installation of any such equipment in both of these elevations and its roof, and have included a condition to this effect. 21. I have little direct evidence of any bat presence, and I note that the building is considered by the Council to have low bat roost potential, and that this has not been cited as a reason for objection by the authority. Nevertheless, given the status of bats as a protected species, I consider to be it a necessary and prudent precaution to ensure that any potential effect on bats and their roosts is assessed before any development proceeds, that any necessary protection and mitigation measures are put in place as part of the development, and that all such matters are fully addressed prior to the commencement of development. I have therefore attached a condition to this effect. Conclusion 22. For the reasons above and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions as attached. Jillian Rann INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/Z4718/D/17/3191961 5 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: ‘Plans as Existing’ drawing revised Aug 2017; ‘Proposed Extension’ drawing revised Aug 2017. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification): i) no windows or other openings shall be installed in either the side wall of the extension facing 8 Hall Lane or its roof ii) no outlets for ventilation or extraction shall be installed in either the rear elevation of the extension or in either the side wall of the extension facing 8 Hall Lane or its roof 5) No development, including demolition, shall take place until a method statement for the protection of bats and their roosts during the demolition and construction period has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The statement shall include a survey to ascertain any presence of bats, and details of any necessary mitigation measures. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement.