Two storey extension at the side

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 February 2018 by Helen Hockenhull BA(Hons) B.Pl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 February 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4310/D/18/3194078 161 Fonthill Road, Liverpool L4 1QD  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 Miss Hayley Wright against the decision of Liverpool City Council.  The application Ref 17H/1942, dated 30 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 28 November 2017.  The development proposed is a two storey extension at the side. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are:  the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and  the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings with particular regard to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property comprises a two storey semi-detached house located in a modern residential area to the west of Fonthill Road, Liverpool. The area is characterised by two storey semi-detached properties and bungalows with older terraced housing to the north and west. The side elevation of the appeal dwelling faces the rear of Nos 91 and 93 Orwell Road. 4. It is proposed to construct a two storey side extension with a width of around 3 metres. On the front elevation at ground floor, a bay window with canopy above would be provided, matching the design of the existing house. The first floor would be set back from the front elevation with a slightly lower ridge height. 5. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 1– House Extensions 2001 (SPG) advises that two storey side extensions on semi-detached properties should not exceed half the width of the existing house. In the appeal case, half the width would be approximately 2.5 metres. The proposed Appeal Decision APP/Z4310/D/18/3194078 2 extension, being around 3 metres in width, would therefore fail to comply with this guidance. 6. The appellant has brought my attention to and provided photographs of a number of other two storey side extensions to residential properties in the local area that exceed half the width of the original dwelling. Many of these post- date the Council’s SPG. Whilst I have had regard to these, I consider that each proposal should be considered on its individual merits having regard to its impact on the street scene and the character of the area. 7. The proposed extension would be around 60% of the width of the original house. When viewed with the neighbouring property, I consider this would form a disproportionate addition which would unbalance the semi-detached pair. As a result the appeal proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. 8. I note that the appeal property sits in a larger plot compared to other neighbouring properties and that the proposed extension would not occupy more than 50% of the site. Whilst the extension may not be disproportionate to the size of the existing plot, I consider it would be disproportionate to the size of the original dwelling. 9. The extension has been designed to complement the existing house. It would also be set back at first floor with a lower ridge height so that it would appear subservient to the host property. Whilst these factors provide support to the scheme, they do not outweigh the adverse impact I have found to the visual amenity of the locality. 10. The appellant has commented that SPG Note 1- House Extensions is nearly 20 years old and is outdated, particularly as it does not take account of current permitted development rights. Whilst I accept that it is old, it remains adopted by the Council and supplements Saved UDP Policy H8. I consider that this policy complies with the objective of the National Planning Policy Framework to protect the amenity of all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. It therefore forms a material consideration and should be afforded weight in determining this appeal. 11. I have found that the appeal proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. The scheme would conflict with Saved Policy H8 of the Liverpool Unitary Development Plan 2002 (UDP) and the Council’s SPD Note 1. These documents aim to ensure that house extensions respect the character of the existing dwelling and adjacent properties. Living conditions 12. The proposed extension faces the rear elevations of the neighbouring properties at Nos 91 and 93 Orwell Road. The separation distance would be around 12.5 metres. 13. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 10 (SPG) 2001 concerns New Residential Development. It states that elevations with habitable room windows facing two storey flank walls should be a minimum distance of 15 metres apart. Whilst the appeal relates to an extension not a new development, the guidance this document provides is still relevant to this appeal. Appeal Decision APP/Z4310/D/18/3194078 3 14. The Council in their delegated report refer to a required separation distance of 23 metres. However this distance relates to habitable room windows in rear facing elevations, not a side elevation facing a rear elevation as in the appeal case. The Council’s assessment is therefore incorrect and I attach limited weight to this evidence. 15. The appellant has made reference to a number of extensions to existing properties and also new residential development where the separation distance of 15 metres has not been met. These examples post-date SPG Note 10. I acknowledge that some diversity in terms of proximity to neighbouring boundaries can be identified in the local area. However an assessment of a proposal and its impact on the living conditions of the occupants of a neighbouring dwelling is necessarily site specific, as it is based on the existing spatial relationship. I have therefore assessed this proposal on its own merits and in light of the observations I made during the site visit. 16. The proposal would extend across nearly the full width of the rear garden of No. 91 Orwell Road and around half of the garden of No.93. As a result the extension would form a dominant structure. Having regard to its proximity to habitable room windows in the rear elevations of the neighbouring properties, I consider it would have an overbearing and enclosing effect resulting in a poor outlook for the occupants of the neighbouring properties. This overbearing effect would also be experienced in the rear garden areas. The proposal would conflict with Saved UDP Policy H8 and the Council’s SPG Note 1 and Note 10 which aim to ensure that a proposal preserves levels of amenity for neighbours and other local residents. Conclusion 17. I have found that the appeal proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area and also to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. 18. I have had regard to the appellant’s need for additional living space for a growing family. Whilst this forms an important consideration, it does not outweigh the harm I have identified above. 19. For the reasons I have outlined, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I dismiss this appeal. Helen Hockenhull INSPECTOR