Two-storey side and rear extension and part single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 May 2018 by Gareth Wildgoose BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25th May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P4415/D/18/3198566 192 Rotherham Road, Maltby, Rotherham S66 8NA  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 John Saunders-Upfold against the decision of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref RB2017/1708, dated 20 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 26 February 2018.  The development proposed is a two-storey side and rear extension and part single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey side and rear extension and part single storey rear extension at 192 Rotherham Road, Maltby, Rotherham S66 8NA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref RB2017/1708, dated 20 November 2017, 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan; AES-0511-01; AES-0511-02 Rev 1; AES-0511-03 Rev 1; AES-0511-04 Rev 1; AES-0511-05 Rev 1; AES-0511-06 Rev 1. 3) 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. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect upon the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to 190 Rotherham Road (No 190) and matters of outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal site consists of a two storey semi-detached dwelling located on the southern side of Rotherham Road. The semi-detached pair and other properties immediately surrounding are of a similar character with rear gardens of considerable depth incorporating a progressive decrease in land levels. No 192 has an existing detached garage at the rear that adjoins the shared boundary Appeal Decision APP/P4415/D/18/3198566 2 with No 190 and its own adjacent garage. Both garages have a lower slab level than the dwellings due to the reducing land levels at the rear. 4. Policy CS28 of the Rotherham Local Plan Core Strategy 2013 -2028 (CS), adopted September 2014, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development proposals are responsive to their context and design takes all opportunities to improve the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. The interpretation of the policy is supported by the Rotherham Householder Design Guide - Interim Planning Guidance (IPG), adopted March 2014, which includes guidance specific to different types of extensions and matters relating to outlook such as overbearing. The policy and guidance relate to the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties and are consistent with the Framework which seeks a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. 5. The proposal would replace the existing detached garage at No 192 with a two storey side and rear extension and an adjoining single storey rear extension. The roof design of the two storey side extension would match the host property and its proportions would be subordinate due to the reduced ridge height of the roof and its narrower width. Furthermore, the extension would be finished in materials to match the existing dwelling, which could be secured by condition. When viewed from Rotherham Road, the two storey side extension would be similar to other extensions nearby that adjoin shared boundaries and would comply with the criteria in the IPG relating to that type of extension, including sufficient driveway length and parking arrangements on the frontage of the property. The single storey rear element of the extension would be set away from the shared side boundaries with a projection of less than 4m that would comply with the IPG. Consequently, the single storey rear element would not harm the living conditions of occupiers of No 190 or No 194. 6. The Council’s concerns relate specifically to the two storey rear element of the extension and its effect upon No 190. In that regard, the nearest windows of No 190 to the shared boundary with No 192 are non-habitable which results in habitable windows in the rear elevation being more distant and closer to No 188. As a consequence, the proposal would meet the guidance in the IPG in terms of not exceeding a 45 degree angle from the nearest habitable windows in the rear elevation of No 190. Furthermore, the extension would not be a disproportionate addition as it would be less than half the depth of the original property. However, the two storey extension has a rear gable design adjoining the boundary which would project approximately 3.6m at the rear and therefore, would be of a greater depth than the threshold of 3m that the IPG indicates should generally not be exceeded if close to the shared boundary. 7. Notwithstanding the above, the guidance in the IPG carries less weight than policy and in any case, it is necessary that the development is assessed relative to the specific circumstances of the proposal, the site and its surroundings. In that regard, there is a noticeable difference between the existing rear building line of No 192 and that of No 190 which projects further to the rear. The difference is similar to the extent that the two storey rear extension at No 192 would exceed the IPG guidance. Consequently, whilst the scale, bulk and massing at the rear of No 192 would be increased in close proximity to the shared boundary, the depth of the extension would not have an unacceptable overbearing or overshadowing effect upon the outlook from No 190 due to the Appeal Decision APP/P4415/D/18/3198566 3 variation in existing building lines and the compliance with the 45 degree angle from the nearest habitable windows in its rear elevation. 8. In addition, the extension would be separated from the rear garden of No 190 by the detached garage and driveway closer to the shared boundary. As a result, even when taking account of the reducing land levels at the rear, there would be no significant overbearing or overshadowing effect upon the rear garden of No 190 or adverse impact upon its function and enjoyment as amenity space. Furthermore, there would be no overlooking or loss of privacy as facing windows are not proposed within the side elevation on the submitted plans. Consequently, the proposal would not have a harmful effect upon the living conditions of occupiers of No 190. As the other neighbouring properties are more distant from the proposal, it also would not have an adverse effect upon the living conditions of the occupiers of those properties. 9. I conclude that the development would not have a harmful effect upon the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, including No 190. The proposal, therefore, would not conflict with Policy CS28 of the CS and the Framework in that respect. In the particular circumstances of this case, the conflict with the guidance in the IPG is outweighed by the other considerations, which reflect the specific circumstances of the proposal, the site and its surroundings and the resultant absence of harm. Conditions 10. The Council provided a list of conditions if the appeal were to be allowed. To provide certainty of the planning permission granted, a condition is required to specify the time limit for implementation, together with a plans compliance condition that sets out those which are approved. A further condition is also necessary to ensure matching materials in the interest of the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Conclusion 11. For the reasons given above, I conclude the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted subject to the conditions set out in the formal decision. Gareth Wildgoose INSPECTOR