Rear bedroom extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 April 2018 by Elaine Gray MA(Hons) MSc IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 19 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/X1355/D/18/3194494 29 South Lea, Witton Gilbert, Durham DH7 6RN  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 Sarah Jane Henderson against the decision of Durham County Council.  The application Ref DM/17/03147/FPA, dated 19 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 5 December 2017.  The development proposed is rear bedroom extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to overshadowing and privacy. Reasons 3. The appeal site at 29 South Lea is a two storey, semi-detached property in an area of similar residences. The proposal would create a first floor extension above an existing rear ground floor extension. 4. The adjacent property at 31 South Lea has a rear first floor bedroom window that would be in close proximity to the new extension. The extension would project by around 2.7m from the rear of No 29, and would sit immediately to the south-east of No 31. As a result, it would reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the bedroom window during the day. This would particularly be the case during winter months, when the sun rises to a lower point in the sky. 5. As the rear elevations of both properties face north-east, they will experience limited direct sunlight. The overshadowing effect of the proposal would therefore be all the more significant. I consider that the loss of sunlight and the resultant overshadowing of the bedroom window that would arise from the proposed extension would be materially harmful to the living conditions of the occupants at No 31. 6. The appellant has provided a plan showing that the new extension would breach the 45 degree angle from the neighbouring bedroom window by a relatively small amount. I note that the proposal has been amended to reduce its width in order to achieve this. Whilst I agree that the amended scheme Appeal Decision APP/X1355/D/18/3194494 2 would preserve the outlook from that window, this would not mitigate the harm that I have identified. 7. The rear elevation of 47 South Lea directly faces the rear elevation of the appeal site. Policy Q8 of the City of Durham Local Plan (LP) relates to new residential development, and amongst other things, seeks to provide adequate amenity and privacy for each dwelling. Within the justification for the policy, a separation distance of 21 metres between the windows of habitable rooms is required to ensure privacy and avoid overlooking. I am satisfied that this standard is equally applicable in considering extensions to existing properties. 8. The proposed development would reduce the separation distance between the first floor windows of the properties from around 22m to around 18.85m. On my site visit, I saw that No 47 occupies higher ground than No 29. However, the difference in levels would not be sufficient to avoid direct views between the bedroom windows. Furthermore, the existing boundary hedge between the properties is not high enough to screen views at first floor level. 9. To my mind, bedrooms are important living spaces in which residents are likely to spend a significant amount of time, both during the day and in the evening. In the absence of suitable screening, or other mitigating factors, it would be possible to see clearly into the facing rooms from each property. Given the specific site conditions in this case, the reduced separation distance would result in the perception of unwelcome surveillance. Thus, the current level of privacy experienced by neighbouring residents within their dwelling would be unacceptably compromised. 10. Taking all these factors together, I conclude that the living conditions of the occupants at both 31 and 47 South Lea would be materially harmed by the proposed development, in terms of overshadowing and loss of privacy. It would therefore conflict with LP Policy Q8, and with LP Policy Q9, which requires that extensions should respect the privacy of adjoining occupiers. 11. I note the personal circumstances of the appellant, and the benefit of increasing the accommodation available to them, but I can give this private benefit little weight in planning terms. I note also the fact that no letters of objection have been received regarding the effect of the proposal on No 47. Nonetheless, this circumstance has not led me to a different conclusion. 12. I have been referred to a planning permission that was granted for a two- storey extension at 45 South Lea in 2013. However, I do not have the full details of the circumstances that led to that proposal being accepted, and so I cannot be sure that they represent a direct parallel to the appeal proposal. In any event, each case is to be considered on its own merits. 13. For the reasons above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Elaine Gray INSPECTOR