Single storey dining room extension at rear with pitched roof. Built with materials to match existing property. UPVC side door, rear patio door and two velux rooflights (windows)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 June 2018 by Beverley Wilders BA (Hons) PgDurp MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A1015/D/18/3199582 12 Butterton Drive, Chesterfield S40 4UW  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph A4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended).  The appeal is made by Mr Jamie Grocutt against the decision of Chesterfield Borough Council.  The application Ref CHE/18/00032/TPD, dated 18 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 5 March 2018.  The development proposed is described as single storey dining room extension at rear with pitched roof. Built with materials to match existing property. UPVC side door, rear patio door and two velux rooflights (windows). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. Class A of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015(GPDO) permits the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse. 3. Paragraphs A.1(f) & (g) of Class A set out size restrictions for single storey rear extensions, with larger extensions being permitted subject to prior notification to the local planning authority. Where an objection is received to a proposal from an adjoining owner or occupier, then as set out in paragraph A.4 of Class A, the prior approval of the local planning authority is required as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining occupiers. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining property 10 Butterton Drive having regard to outlook, sunlight and daylight. Reasons 5. The appeal site comprises a modestly proportioned semi-detached dwelling located within an estate of similar properties. The host building and the adjoining dwelling at 10 Butterton Drive contain a door and window in the ground floor of the rear elevation facing towards the reasonably small rear gardens. It appears that the door and window serve kitchens and that the Appeal Decision APP/A1015/D/18/3199582 2 kitchens also have side windows. The common side boundary between the two dwellings and rear gardens is currently marked by a solid timber fence. 6. The proposed extension would extend some distance beyond the rear elevation of the host building and that of No 10. Though it would be set in slightly from the common side boundary and though it would have a pitched roof sloping away from No 10, it would nevertheless be a bulky addition which would be higher than the existing boundary fence. The size, height and position of the proposed extension relative to the ground floor door and window and rear garden of No 10 means that it would have an overbearing impact on and would materially reduce the outlook from No 10. In addition the relative orientation of the two dwellings and the size and close proximity of the proposed extension to No 10 means that it would also be likely to result in the overshadowing of and a material loss of daylight to the adjoining dwelling and garden. Consequently there would be an adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 10. 7. In reaching my decision I note that the appellant states that the common side boundary between the two properties was previously marked by a high conifer hedge and that the kitchen at No 10 is also served by a side window that would be unaffected by the proposal. However the conifer hedge was not in place at the time of my site visit and I have assessed the proposal based on the evidence and site circumstances before me. Whilst I note that the affected room at No 10 is served by another window, I do not consider that this would adequately mitigate the adverse impact that the proposal would have on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 10 resulting from the proposal. My attention has also been drawn to the fact that the extension would not be visible from the front of the host building and that similar extensions exist nearby. Though the extension would not be prominent it would nevertheless have a harmful impact on living conditions as set out above and I am not aware of the specific circumstances relating to the other examples given. In any event, I must determine the proposal before me on its own merits. 8. Taking the above matters into consideration, I conclude that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 10 Butterton Drive having regard to outlook, sunlight and daylight. 9. For the above reasons and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Beverley Wilders INSPECTOR