Demolition of existing conservatory to the rear, addition of two storey side and rear extensions and single storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 February 2018 by Nick Palmer BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/J0540/D/17/3192043 Highlands, Marholm Road, Ufford, Peterborough PE9 3BL  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 & Mrs M Bennett against the decision of Peterborough City Council.  The application Ref 17/01526/HHFUL, dated 24 March 2016, was refused by notice dated 6 October 2017.  The development proposed is demolition of existing conservatory to the rear, addition of two storey side and rear extensions and single storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing conservatory to the rear, addition of two storey side and rear extensions and single storey side extension at Highlands, Marholm Road, Ufford, Peterborough PE9 3BL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/01526/HHFUL, dated 24 March 2016, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: A100/A, A102R, A103P, A104M, A302J and A303G. 2) The ledge to the rear of the second floor bedroom and en-suite bathroom windows shall not be used as a balcony, roof terrace or similar amenity area. Background 2. An extension has been built to the rear of the property but it differs from the approved plans in terms of its detailed design, specifically on the second floor rear elevation. The application seeks approval for the extension as built. The detailed changes that have been made are to the pitch of the rear roofs, the height of a rear bathroom window and in terms of the construction of a parapet wall. The Council’s reason for refusal is based on concern that the amended design could lead to use of a ledge adjacent to the second floor rear windows as a sitting out area and affect the privacy of adjacent occupants. As the works have been carried out I shall consider the proposal on the basis that it is retrospective. Main Issue 3. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of adjacent occupants. Appeal Decision APP/J0540/D/17/3192043 2 Reasons 4. The house is detached and occupies a large garden. The original part of the house is of two storeys and its rear extension is at a lower ground level and has second floor accommodation within its roof. A house has recently been built to the east of the site (The Paddocks). On the second floor rear elevation of the extension there are two windows to a bedroom and en-suite bathroom which are recessed under a double gabled roof structure. In front of those windows there is a ledge. 5. The rear roofs are of lower pitch than previously approved such that their eaves are significantly above the ledge. The parapet wall has been constructed along the rear part of the ledge and the cill level of the bathroom window is lower than approved and at the same height as that of the bedroom window. 6. I saw that from the rear windows a patio to the immediate rear of The Paddocks is visible at an angle. This is a reasonable distance away from the windows and the overhanging roofs limit the visibility of the neighbour’s property from those windows. The raised roof eaves do not allow increased visibility because of the supporting stonework in the centre and to both sides of the roofs. Thus the amended roof design does not increase opportunities for unacceptable overlooking of the neighbour’s property from the rear windows. 7. The ledge to the rear of the bedroom and bathroom windows is of restricted width at 0.9m and the parapet wall is low at 0.45m. Taking these factors into account the ledge does not provide a safe or usable space for a balcony or terrace. I saw that the gap under the central roof valley is very restricted and would not enable easy access between the two parts of the ledge. Furthermore access onto the ledge would not be easily gained because both the bedroom and en-suite bathroom windows have cill heights of 0.45m. The bedroom window remains at the approved height and although the bathroom cill is lower than approved it is no lower than the bedroom window. 8. For these reasons the detailed changes to the design would not realistically facilitate use of the ledge as a balcony or terrace. However in order to provide certainty in this respect a condition could be imposed to restrict such use of the ledge similarly to the existing condition. 9. Policy CS16 of the Core Strategy1 requires that there is no unacceptable impact on the amenities of nearby properties and policy PP3 of the Planning Policies2 similarly requires that the privacy of neighbouring occupants is ensured. Policy PP2 of the Planning Policies requires development to make a positive contribution to the quality of the built environment and not to detrimentally affect the character of adjoining properties. I conclude that the proposal would accord with those policies and would not adversely affect the living conditions of adjacent occupants. Conditions 10. A condition restricting use of the ledge as a balcony or terrace is necessary in order to protect the neighbour’s living conditions. I have altered the wording of the appellant’s suggested condition in this respect to accord with the tests in paragraph 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 1 Peterborough City Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2011) 2 Peterborough Planning Policies Development Plan Document (2012) Appeal Decision APP/J0540/D/17/3192043 3 11. The Council suggested a condition that the bathroom window be obscure glazed and fixed shut. I saw that that window is currently clear glazed. However for the reasons given this does not allow for any unacceptable overlooking of the neighbour’s property. On this basis I find such a condition to be unnecessary. 12. I noted that a proposed wall extending to the rear of the extension has not been built. As the development has not been completed it is necessary to specify the approved plans in order to provide certainty. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Nick Palmer INSPECTOR