Two-storey extension to rear of dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 March 2018 by F Rafiq BSc (Hons), MCD, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P1805/D/18/3193805 12 Platform Road, Bromsgrove, B60 3SN  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 Hogg against the decision of Bromsgrove District Council.  The application Ref 17/01295/FUL dated 9 November 2017 was refused by notice dated 18 December 2017.  The development proposed is a two-storey extension to rear of dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property at No. 10 Platform Road with regard to daylight and outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached house located in a group of five dwellings in a residential area. There is a level difference along this section of Platform Road and a stagger in the building lines. The proposed two storey rear extension would extend across part of the width of the appeal dwelling and would be positioned close to the boundary with No. 10 Platform Road. It would project away from the existing building by around 2.8m. 4. The rearward projection of the appeal dwelling is already positioned further to the rear than the neighbouring property at No. 10. The proposal would result in a two-storey addition that would extend further back from rear elevation of No. 10. I acknowledge that the Appellants have considered the effect that a two- storey wall would have on the neighbouring property, and set the proposed extension behind the existing boundary fence. However, the extension would only be slightly set away from the boundary and would significantly increase the impact of the development at first floor level, above the height of the current boundary treatment. 5. My attention has been drawn to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 1 Residential Design Guide (SPG1), and the application of the 45 Degree Appeal Decision APP/P1805/D/18/3193805 2 Code for domestic extensions. The submitted plans do show two 45 degree lines taken from the corner of No. 10’s bi-fold doors and the kitchen window. On the latter of these, the extension would breach this line. I note the kitchen window and the bi-fold doors serve the same open-plan room and I was able to see this arrangement at the time of my visit. I am not however persuaded that this justifies the development, which would result in a diminution of daylight to the kitchen area, which is the space within this room that is closest to the affected window. 6. The Appellants refer to the overshadowing already created by the houses to the rear for part of the day. It is also said that the garden at No.10 would continue to receive full sunshine on summer evenings. Whilst I have no reason to doubt that would be the case in relation to sunlight, given the mass and proximity of the extension, I find that it would result in a loss of daylight to the detriment of the neighbouring occupiers. 7. No. 10 Platform Road is one of the end properties in this group of five dwellings and has an open landscaped area that bounds it on the northern side. This gives that dwelling an open aspect to one side and to the rear, beyond the garden. Although this neighbouring property would continue to remain open on these two sides, the additional two storey projection, in close proximity to this neighbouring property, would nevertheless have a harmful overbearing impact. 8. The Appellants have also suggested that the proposed extension would result in more privacy for the occupants of No. 10 when using their patio area. From my site observations, the main area of No. 10’s patio area is not seen from the rear elevation of the appeal dwelling, and I therefore consider that the privacy benefits arising from the development would be limited, and would not in any event, outweigh the harm by way of loss of daylight and outlook. 9. I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants with regard to daylight and outlook. It would be contrary to Policy BDP1 of the Bromsgrove District Plan and SPG1 in relation to residential amenity. It would also conflict with Paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks a good level of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. Other Matter 10. I appreciate the Appellants are seeking to provide additional accommodation to meet their changing circumstances and that the development would enable the property to continue to be their family home. Whilst this matter weighs in favour of the development, it does not outweigh the harm identified in respect of the main issue. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above and having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. F Rafiq INSPECTOR