Part single storey, part two storey and part first floor extension to rear of dwelling

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate p Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 March 2018 by C J Leigh BSc(Hons) MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Decision date: Tuesday 3rd April 2018. Appeal Ref: APP/D0515/D/18/3193537 18 Glebe Close, Manea, March, Cambs, PE15 0LR  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 Farrington against the decision of Fenland District Council.  The application Ref F/YR17/0881/F, dated 15 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 10 November 2017.  The development proposed is a part single storey, part two storey and part first floor extension to rear of dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr & Mrs Farrington against Fenland District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Main issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers, with particular reference to outlook. Reasons 4. The proposed extension to the rear of the property would sit close to the boundary of the adjoining semi-detached house of 19 Glebe Close. The two storey element of this extension would be 3m deep on this boundary, and it is this aspect of the scheme where I share the concerns of the Council. A two storey extension at such proximity to the neighbour, and close to the window to their rear ground floor window, would substantially change the outlook for existing residents at No. 19: both within the house, and when in the garden immediately to the rear of that house. I do not think the distance from the window to the new extension would be sufficient to mitigate this harmful effect. 5. The appellant has referred to works that might be undertaken at the property through the exercise of permitted development rights. An extension of the height, proximity and depth as proposed in this appeal is notably greater than that which might occur through such rights. For the reasons given above, in my judgement, the scale of the proposed extension would lead to a significantly Appeal Decision APP/D0515/D/18/3193537 2 greater impact on the outlook from the neighbouring house, and I concur with the Council’s comments on this. 6. I acknowledge that the Council do not have specific criteria set out in their development plan, or in any supplementary documents, by which extensions will be judged. However, that is not an uncommon approach of local planning authorities, and this therefore requires an on-site assessment of the merits of the case as it pertains to the particular circumstances of the site. I am satisfied to conclude, based on all I have read and seen, that the scale and siting of the proposed extension would be materially harmful to the outlook of the adjoining resident. The proposal would thus be contrary to Policies LP16(e)1 and LP22 of the Fenland Local Plan 2014, the general aim of which is to seek to deliver and protect high quality environments in the District, which are healthy, safe and equitable. 7. The appellant has referred me to an extension at 24 Glebe Close. I am not aware of the full circumstances of this case that led to the approval, nor the exact relationship between the properties in that instance. I have determined this appeal on its merits, based on the circumstances of the case and the development plan policies. I note there were no objections to the proposed development. However, this does not negate the need to have full regard to the proposal, its relationship with other properties, and the provisions of the development plan. I am of the clear view that the scale and siting of the extension would not display a satisfactory relationship with the neighbouring house. My conclusions therefore remain the same. C J Leigh INSPECTOR 1 I consider criterion (e) of Policy LP16 is relevant, since it states extensions to existing buildings will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated the proposal would not adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring users; the subsequent wording of noise, light pollution, etc, follows the words ‘such as’, and so I do not consider that to be a closed list of amenity issues, but rather an indication of typical amenity considerations. 2 Policy LP2 is relevant since the fifth bullet point requires development to positively contribute to creating a healthy, safe and equitable living environment by promoting high levels of residential amenity, with specific reference to Policy LP16.