Two storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 April 2018 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 16 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W1715/D/18/3192761 37 Satchell Lane, Hamble-le-Rice, Southampton SO31 4HF  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 Mrs T Sullivan against the decision of Eastleigh Borough Council.  The application, Ref. H/17/81396, dated 31 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 17 October 2017.  The development proposed is a two storey rear extension. This decision is issued in accordance with Section 56(2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) and supersedes the decision issued on 16 April 2018. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The online appeal file includes composite Drawing No. 01 Rev. C, but as both the application form and the Council’s Notice of Refusal refer to Drawing No. 01 Rev. B, I have determined the appeal on the basis of that plan only. 3. The Notice of Refusal refers only to the impact on the living conditions for the occupiers of No. 35 Satchell Lane. However, the officer’s report on the application also refers to the impact on No. 39 Satchell Lane, albeit that the conclusion in that part of the report again refers to No. 35 Satchell Lane. Furthermore, the officer’s report also refers to an overshadowing of No. 35, but the effect on light is not mentioned in the reason for refusal. Main Issue 4. Notwithstanding the confusion caused by the matters in paragraphs 2 and 3 above, I consider the main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions for the adjoining occupiers at Nos. 35 & 39 in respect of outlook and light. Reasons 5. I saw on my visit that at present the appeal property at No. 37 including its ground floor conservatory extends several metres forward of the main rear wall of No. 35. However, the main rear wall of No. 39 (which is of a two storey extension) already extends beyond No. 35 to a point roughly level with the Appeal Decision APP/W1715/D/18/3192761 2 extent of the proposed two storey extension, which both replaces the conservatory and extends further to increase the length of the existing building. 6. Taking these factors into account and turning firstly to the effect on No. 35, the Council’s concern is that the first floor and roof of the extension would obstruct the outlook from the rear and include some overshadowing of the rear garden, including to some extent the rear windows. 7. I agree that a 7m length wall projecting 4m beyond the existing extent of the conservatory, with the ground floor hard up to the boundary and the first floor wall inset by a modest amount, would noticeably increase the sense of enclosure from the rear windows and nearest area of garden of No. 35. The outlook from the first floor bedroom rear window would be less affected because of its more southerly position and aspect, but overall there would be an unacceptable impact on the outlook to the rear of No. 35. The Council also refers to an overshadowing effect but having regard to my comment in paragraph 3 above and the fact that No. 35 lies to the south of No. 37, I must assume that this is a reference to an unduly dominant impact rather than the casting of a shadow. 8. The grounds of appeal refer to the evolution of the extensions at Nos. 35 and 37 and the possibility of implementing a fallback position under permitted development. However, I do not consider that either these matters or the extant permission for a single storey extension at No. 35, which may in fact not be built, alter my assessment that whilst the principle of a two storey extension at No. 35 (including a first floor inset) may well be acceptable, the length currently proposed is too great. 9. I take a similar view in respect of the effect on No. 39. The two flank first floor windows face directly towards the side of the appeal property but do have oblique views towards the rear garden of No. 35 and currently benefit from daylight and some afternoon or evening sunlight from that direction. A 7m deep two storey extension would in all probability reduce the outlook and light to an extent that (depending on the use of the room(s) affected) would be unreasonable, whereas the effect from an addition of a somewhat reduced depth would be more likely to strike an appropriate balance between the interests of the neighbour and the appellant’s reasonable requirement for more living space. 10. I have taken account of the fact that neither of the occupiers on each side of No. 35 have objected to the appeal scheme, but whilst this is a positive factor for the appellant it is in the public interest for a planning judgement to take account of all future occupiers of the dwellings. 11. Overall, I consider on balance that the proposed extension would have a harmful effect on the living conditions for the adjoining occupiers at Nos. 35 & 39 in respect of outlook and light, as qualified in the above reasons for my Decision. This would be in conflict with Policy 59.BE of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2001-2011); Policy DM1 of the Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (2011- 2029); the Council’s Quality Places SPD 2015 and the core planning principles of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. Appeal Decision APP/W1715/D/18/3192761 3 12. For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR