Construction of rear extension to ground floor, extension of existing roof to rear to provide additional accommodation and extension to existing garage to include new pitched roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2018 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z1775/D/18/3193938 444 Havant Road, Farlington, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO6 1AB.  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 and Mrs Paul New against the decision of Portsmouth City Council.  The application Ref 17/01338/HOU, dated 28 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 26 October 2017.  The development proposed is described as construction of rear extension to ground floor, extension of existing roof to rear to provide additional accommodation and extension to existing garage to include new pitched roof. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of rear extension to ground floor, extension of existing roof to rear to provide additional accommodation and extension to existing garage to include new pitched roof at 444 Havant Road, Farlington, Portsmouth, Hampshire, PO6 1AB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/01338/HOU, dated 28 July 2017, and the plans submitted with it, 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 materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, drawings: 3669/200, 3669/500, 3669/1, 2-Rev F, 3-Rev A, 4-Rev E, 5-Rev A, 6–Rev E, and OS Sheet dated 10 May 2006. 4) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the new roof windows in the east and west roof slopes have been fitted with obscured glazing. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the windows are installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. Main Issue 2. I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the properties to the south of the appeal Appeal Decision APP/Z1775/D/18/3193938 2 property, 5/7 Broad Gardens, in terms of potential overlooking and loss of privacy leading to an overbearing form of development. Reasons 3. The property the subject of this appeal, 444 Havant Road, is a single storey dwelling with roof space accommodation. The dwelling is set back from the road and the land generally slopes south away from the road. To the rear of the property is a semi-detached pair of houses, 5 and 7 Broad Gardens, set at a lower level than number 444. 4. The appellants propose the construction of a single storey rear addition, extension of the existing roof at first floor level and an extension to the existing garage, including a new pitched roof. With regard to the Council’s evidence, I understand that it raised no objection to the design of the proposed development. From what I have seen and read I would not disagree. 5. The Council’s concern, however, is the potential impact of the extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of numbers 5 and 7 Broad Gardens, in terms of the extension resulting in a loss of privacy and appearing overbearing. 6. I understand that planning permission has previously been given for a scheme similar to that proposed and the construction of that scheme, albeit with some variations, has now been commenced. I was therefore able to see how the rear extension may look in the context of the site and its surroundings. 7. From the application drawings I see that the original property, prior to the rear extension being built, was located further away from the site’s southern boundary. However, it had a pair of French doors and a small balcony at first floor level that, due to the windows in the rear elevations of numbers 5 and 7 Broad Gardens, would have led to some overlooking and a potential loss of privacy. 8. The proposed extension would reduce the separation distance between number 444 as extended and the neighbouring dwellings to the rear. However, the proposed development would result in the loss of the first floor French windows and balcony, therefore removing that existing and significant potential for overlooking leading to a loss of privacy. 9. The proposed flat roof projection would contain a range of bi-folding doors which, due to the relationship of the finished floor level to the level of the rear garden, would be raised above the general ground level. However, given the number of original windows in the rear wall at ground floor level, the new fenestration would not to my mind result in a significant increase in the area of rear facing windows. 10. Furthermore, given the fall in the land, the relationship of the neighbouring properties and the existing boundary fencing, I am not persuaded, from what I have seen, that the proposal would result in such an increase in the potential for overlooking as to result in a significant increased loss of privacy. 11. I consider that due to the contemporary design and proposed single storey extension being closer to the rear of numbers 5 and 7 Broad Gardens that the proposal may well appear more obtrusive than the original property and single storey outshot. However, I am not persuaded that the extension would be Appeal Decision APP/Z1775/D/18/3193938 3 either so overbearing or intrusive, as suggested by the Council, as to cause harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring residential occupiers. 12. I therefore conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed development would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the properties to the south, 5/7 Broad Gardens, in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy leading to an overbearing form of development. It would therefore accord with Policy PCS23 of The Portsmouth Plan – (Portsmouth’s Core Strategy) (Adopted 24 January 2012) and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework as they relate to the protection of residential living conditions. Conditions 13. The conditions follow from those suggested by the Council. To ensure a high quality development, I shall include a condition about the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building. To ensure the private amenity of neighbouring occupiers to either side, I shall require the new roof windows in the side elevations to be obscured glazed. 14. In the interests of certainty, I shall also impose a condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans. Conclusions 15. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Philip Willmer INSPECTOR