Single storey extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 May 2018 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P2114/D/18/3199463 24 Salisbury Road, Ryde, PO33 1BY  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 C Oliver against the decision of the Isle of Wight Council.  The application, Ref. P/01436/17, dated 24 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 22 January 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey extension at 24 Salisbury Road, Ryde in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. P/01436/17, dated 24 November 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision; 2) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing Nos. 2017/228/01 & 2017/228/02 Rev. A; 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; 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no windows shall be constructed within the western elevation of the development hereby permitted. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions for adjoining occupiers as regards outlook and light. Reasons 3. I saw on my visit that there are two windows in the flank wall of the adjoining dwelling No. 22 that face the appeal scheme, which is to demolish a lean-to structure and square off the main building with a flat roof extension. Appeal Decision APP/P2114/D/18/3199463 2 4. The Council is correct to assert that the more northerly of the windows would be obstructed to some degree in terms of both outlook and light including sunlight; it is the extent to which this would occur that is at issue in this appeal. 5. However, the grounds of appeal include an additional Drawing No. 2017/228/ 02 Revision A, and this shows that the corner of the proposed extension would not be intersected by a notional line drawn at an angle of 45 degrees from the centre of the window concerned. The submitted plan does use the term ‘approximate’ in respect of the position of this window, but as a similar line drawn from the furthest edge of the window also does not cross the corner and having regard to the size of the gap between the two buildings, I am satisfied that the analysis is essentially accurate. 6. Furthermore, this information is a generally accepted method of assessing whether the effect of an extension on both outlook and light would be acceptable, and whilst I do not consider the refusal of permission to be unreasonable, in the light of the further evidence I am minded to give greater weight to the grounds of appeal. 7. There are also additional matters that support the appellant’s case. The second more southerly window in the room at No. 22 would not be affected in terms of either outlook or light by the appeal proposal. The appellant also has permitted development rights if permission is not granted and although almost a metre shorter in depth an extension would also have some effect on the northern window. Obstruction to outlook and light could also occur at some time in the future through the combination of a fence and hedge in the garden of No. 24. 8. Finally, the occupier of No. 22 has not objected to the proposed extension. Whilst the absence of such an objection is not in itself a deciding factor, it is nonetheless a material consideration favourable for the appellant in any decision whether permission should be granted. 9. Overall, I conclude that there would not be an unacceptable effect on the living conditions for the occupiers of No. 22 Salisbury Road as regards outlook and light in conflict with Policy DM2 of the Island Plan Core Strategy 2012 and the core planning principles of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012. I shall therefore allow the appeal. 10. The Council has suggested some conditions if the appeal is allowed and I consider these reasonable and necessary. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is needed for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. A condition in respect of matching external materials will safeguard visual amenity. Finally, a condition precluding the subsequent insertion of windows in the wall facing no. 22 will ensure that there is no loss of privacy for the neighbours. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR