First floor rear extension above existing single storey extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 May 2018 by W Johnson BA (Hons) DipTP DipUDR MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/J4423/D/18/3195273 71 Bradley Street, Sheffield S10 1PA  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 S Bradley against the decision of Sheffield City Council.  The application Ref 17/04756/FUL, dated 20 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 21 December 2017.  The development proposed is a first floor rear extension above existing single storey 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 occupiers, with particular regard to outlook and privacy. Reasons 3. The appeal dwelling is set back from Bradley Street, and is located adjacent to the rear gardens of properties on Slinn Street. The host dwelling comprises a 2-storey detached house that is of stone construction with a slate roof. 4. The extension would be sited above an existing single storey utility room that in turn forms part of the rear boundary wall. The scale and form of this existing element of the dwelling is subordinate in relation to the main dwelling, accentuated through such features as the hipped roof. The first floor rear extension would be sited directly over of the existing utility room, occupying the same irregular shaped footprint. To the rear of the host dwelling is a modest paved garden area that provides the private amenity space for the host dwelling. 5. The rear wall of the utility room is very close to the rear gardens of properties located on Slinn Street. I note the appellant’s comments in relation to the orientation and distances maintained between the host property and the properties located on Slinn Street, and I agree that the proposal would not create any harmful effects with the neighbouring dwellings themselves or their habitable room windows. Guideline 5 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Designing House Extensions refers to over dominance in the context of the neighbouring dwellings and in this regard I consider that the proposal accords with this guidance. However, the Council in their report clarify their concerns in Appeal Decision APP/J4423/D/18/3195273 2 more detail, and confirm that the concern surrounds the effect of the proposal on the rear gardens of the properties on Slinn Street. 6. I too have concerns over the height of the rear extension which would be sited on its rear boundary. The first floor element would dominate the rear section of the neighbouring domestic garden, which would then be exacerbated by the proposed rear gable, thus adding further scale and massing to the development. The resultant scale and massing of the extension would create a tall, solid structure in close proximity to the domestic gardens, which would be intrusive and result in a significant harmful effect on the ability of neighbouring occupiers to enjoy their rear gardens. 7. The scheme proposes a window at first floor that would serve a bedroom. Whilst it does not directly face any dwellings, it would by virtue of the tapering rear boundary line, overlook the rear gardens of properties on Slinn Street. It is acknowledged that the host dwelling already has windows present at first floor in the rear elevation of the house, but due to the orientation and distance from the rear boundary, where there is also some relief from the boundary treatment itself, the effect is lessened. However, during my visit I noticed that the closest rear garden that the bedroom window would face has a patio area with seating present on the opposite side of the rear boundary with the host dwelling. This area would be clearly visible from the proposed first floor window and due to its close proximity and elevated position would overlook this area of garden, which is clearly used by its occupiers. The ability to overlook this area of garden would result in a significant loss of privacy to the occupiers of this property. It would therefore conflict with guideline 6 of the Supplementary Planning Guidance on Designing House Extensions, which seek amongst other things to avoid loss of privacy. 8. For all of these reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposal would unacceptably harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to outlook and privacy. This would conflict with the overall amenity and design aims of Policy H14 of The Sheffield Unitary Development Plan. Additionally, the proposal is not consistent with the core planning principle of the Framework that seeks a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings (paragraph 17). Other matters 9. I have had regard to matters raised by a neighbouring occupier at 65 Bradley Street, who has raised no objection to the scheme providing there are no additional windows inserted overlooking their property, access requirements and restitution of any disturbance to the boundary wall during construction, but these do not alter my conclusions on the main issue. I have considered this appeal proposal on its own particular merits and concluded that it would cause harm for the reasons set out above. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Wayne Johnson INSPECTOR