Demolish existing side elevation garage. Replace garage with incorporation of utility room at rear. First floor side elevation extension over garage/utility

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 April 2018 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1st May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/J0405/D/18/3196276 57 Great Lane, Bierton, Aylesbury, HP22 5DE  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 G Bolitho and Ms N Trafford against the decision of Aylesbury Vale District Council  The application Ref 17/03705/APP, dated 16 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 28 November 2017.  The development proposed is demolish existing side elevation garage. Replace garage with incorporation of utility room at rear. First floor side elevation extension over garage/utility. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 1a Grendon Way, with regards to outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling with a single storey garage, located close to Great Lane’s junction with Grendon Way. The property has a single storey extension to the side and rear. It is situated in a residential area, characterised by the presence of semi detached and detached dwellings set back from the road behind gardens and/or parking areas and with gardens to the rear. 4. The presence of gardens, wide grass verges and occasional trees affords the area green and spacious qualities. 5. Number 1a Grendon Way comprises a two storey detached dwelling fronting Grendon Way but positioned at the corner of Great Lane/Grendon Way such that it sits alongside the appeal property. The elevation of No 1a which faces out towards Great Lane is set slightly further back than the front elevation of the appeal property. 6. The elevation of No 1a which faces directly towards the side elevation of the appeal property contains three ground floor windows to habitable rooms, as well Appeal Decision APP/J0405/D/18/3196276 2 as two obscure glazed windows to the first floor. This elevation is separated from the side of the appeal property by a narrow passage and a brick wall with planting above. There is a further narrow passage alongside the appeal property. 7. During my site visit I observed that, whilst the appeal property and No 1a Grendon Way appear close together, the existing boundary wall provides for a degree of privacy whilst the presence of the narrow gaps between the two properties, combined with the relatively low height of the appeal property’s single storey garage and rear extension, provide for some sense of openness and space in respect of the outlook from No 1a’s facing ground floor windows. 8. The proposed development would result in a first storey addition to the side of the appeal property in very close proximity to the ground floor kitchen and dining room windows of No 1a. I find that this would have the effect of replacing the existing outlook with a much more oppressive one, such that the proposal would appear so tall, wide and immediate as to “loom” above No 1a’s kitchen and dining room windows. As such, the proposal would appear visually intrusive and would unduly dominate the outlook from those windows. 9. Taking the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 1a Grendon Way with regards to outlook, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (2004) Policy GP8, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity. Conclusion 10.For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed. N McGurk INSPECTOR