Two storey and single storey extension at the rear. New porch to front

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 March 2018 by Andrew McGlone BSc MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4310/D/17/3192816 16 Delamain Road, Liverpool L13 0BL  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 David Hughes against the decision of Liverpool City Council.  The application Ref 17H/1859, dated 27 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 29 September 2017.  The development proposed is two storey and single storey extension at the rear. New porch to front. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the two storey and single storey extension at the rear. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the new porch to front and planning permission is granted for a new porch to front at 16 Delamain Road, Liverpool L13 0BL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17H/1859, dated 27 June 2017, subject to the following 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: Site Location Plan 1:1250; and Drawing No 1. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the porch hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Procedural Matter and Main Issue 2. I note that the Council do not raise concern with the single storey rear extension or the porch to the front of the appeal property. I agree with view. It appears to me from the plans that the porch extension would be capable of being constructed independently of the proposed rear extensions. The single storey rear extension is not, however, severable from the two storey rear extension. As I have power to issue a split decision, I will grant planning permission for the porch, subject to planning conditions with regard to timing, materials and the plans, which are necessary in the interests of certainty and the character and appearance of the area. 3. As a result, the main issue is the effect of the proposed two storey extension on the living conditions of the occupants of 14 and 18 Delamain Road, with regards to outlook. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a mid-terraced dwelling in a residential area. The Appeal Decision APP/Z4310/D/17/3192816 2 property is constructed from brick and render with a slate roof. A ginnel is between the appeal property and No 14. This provides access from the rear gardens of both properties to the road. A door and a large window serve the ground floor kitchen of No 14. At first floor are three obscure glazed bathroom windows. A French door and kitchen window are in the ground floor of No 18, while the first floor has a bedroom window and an obscure glazed bathroom window. Timber fences, roughly 1.5 metres high, line the rear garden boundaries between the appeal site and Nos 14 and 18. All three houses have good-sized rear gardens and have not been extended to the rear. 5. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 1 ‘House Extensions’ (SPG) states that two storey extensions away from the party boundary should have a maximum projection of three metres and be at least three metres from the party boundary if the adjoining property has not been extended at ground floor level. This is due to the serious impact two storey extensions can have on the living conditions of occupants of adjacent properties. 6. Even though the depth of the two storey extension would accord with the SPG, it would, despite amendments, be within three metres of the party boundaries of Nos 14 and 18. As a result, conflict would arise with the SPG. The distances do increase to the habitable room windows in Nos 14 and 18, but the SPG confirms that kitchens are a habitable room. A blank brick façade would face No 14. This would, in tandem with the extension’s close proximity and scale, harm the outlook from the kitchen of No 14. While the kitchen door window is obscure glazed, the proposal would have an overbearing effect due to its proximity and scale. Having regard to No 18, the two storey extension is handed away from the ground and first floor habitable room windows. This would, notwithstanding the conflict with the SPG, mean that the occupants of No 18 would maintain a satisfactory outlook. 7. Despite concerns about the scheme’s effect on adjacent gardens, each garden is of a good size and they benefit from a sense of space due to the adjoining gardens to the rear. However, due to the layout of the terrace, if the proposed two storey extension was repeated, it would lead to a cumulative reduction in the living conditions of residents in terms of their outlook from rear facing habitable room windows which are present throughout the terrace. 8. Reference has been made to extensions at 19 Sandy Grove, 82 Ferguson Road and 5 Adair Road, but I note that they were either approved before The City of Liverpool Unitary Development Plan (UDP) was adopted or the Council has no record of the extension. As both 11 Sandy Grove and 25 Adair Road are semi-detached properties they have greater space around them. Thus, they are not directly comparable examples given the tight-knit form of the terrace. 9. Thus, I conclude that the proposed two storey extension would result in significant harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 14, with regards to outlook. The proposal would not accord with saved UDP Policies HD18 and H8 and the SPG; which jointly, among other things, seek to ensure the scale of the extension preserves levels of amenity for neighbours and local residents. Conclusions 10. I conclude that the appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part. Andrew McGlone INSPECTOR