First floor side extension and partial extension of rear wall of existing single-storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 May 2018 by A Parkin BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4310/D/18/3199583 6 Bowfield Road, Liverpool L19 9AT  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 Chris Holloway against the decision of Liverpool City Council.  The application Ref 17H/3552, dated 19 December 2017, was refused by the Local Planning Authority on 23 January 2018.  The development proposed is a first floor side extension and partial extension of rear wall of existing single-storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed. Planning permission is granted for a first floor side extension and partial extension of rear wall of existing single-storey rear extension at 6 Bowfield Road, Liverpool L19 9AT, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17H/3552, dated 19 December 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 materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: AG(00)01B; AG(00)03C; AG(00)04B; and AG(00)05A. 4) Prior to occupation of the extension the proposed window at first floor level to the side elevation shall be fitted with obscured glass, no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened, and it shall be permanently retained as such thereafter. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed first floor side extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of 7 Bowfield Road. Reasons 3. Bowfield Road is a narrow residential cul-de-sac containing a mix of one and two storey, semi-detached and detached dwellings, which is accessed from Southbank Road. 5 and 6 Bowfield Road are a pair of semi-detached houses, Appeal Decision APP/Z4310/D/18/3199583 2 whilst 7 Bowfield Road is semi-detached to 9 Southbank Road, which occupies a corner plot. 4. 7 Bowfield Road is a singular property; it faces onto the street, as do numbers 5 and 6 Bowfield Road, but the plot size is small in comparison and extends only as far back as the rear building line of the existing extension to No. 6. It is a semi-detached house, but is asymmetrically joined to the rear of 9 Southbank Road, rather than in a more conventional semi-detached arrangement. 5. No. 7 has been extended to the rear, and has a single storey free-standing rear garage with a gently pitched roof adjacent to and slightly higher than, the rear part of the existing single storey extension of 6 Bowfield Road. A wall / hedge with an iron gate, some 2 metres in height, demarcates the side of the property. To the side-rear of No. 7 are two bay windows, vertically aligned at ground and first floor level facing the side elevation of No. 6. Also in the side rear area, adjacent to the boundary with No. 6 are two coniferous trees, which rise almost to eaves level. 6. The proposed side extension would be set back some 0.4 metres from the front elevation of the appeal property to match the existing ground floor side extension. It would rise to the existing eaves height but would have a lower level hipped roof ridgeline, thereby making it subordinate to the main building. The proposed extension would contain an obscured glazed window at first floor level, somewhat higher and of a larger size than an existing un-obscured first floor window in the side elevation of No. 6. The roof tiles and render on the side elevation of the proposed extension would match the existing materials and finishes. 7. Whilst the arrangement between No.s 6 and 7 Bowfield Road is a little unusual, in practice the front of No. 7 faces on to Bowfield Road and its rear faces on to the rear garden of 11 Southbank Road, with the side elevations of No.s 6 and 7 facing each other. 8. The Council states that the two bay windows at the side-rear of 7 Bowfield Road serve habitable rooms, and that there would be a distance of some 6.2 metres between them and the extension such that it would have ‘an overbearing and dominant impact to the detriment of the residential amenity and outlook of the occupant of that property’. In this regard reference is made to Policy H8 – House Extensions, in the City of Liverpool Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2002, Supplementary Planning Guidance notes 1 – House Extensions (SPG1) and 10 – New Residential Development (SPG10), noting that paragraph 17 of SPG10 states ‘Window to Wall Separation Distances: To avoid excessive overshadowing of main windowed elevations and rear garden elevations: habitable room windowed elevations facing single and two-storey flanked walls should be a minimum distance of 15m apart’. 9. I note what SPG1 says in relation to having regard to interface distances, albeit that these distances are in an SPG that deals with new housing developments rather than housing extensions. The current distance between the ground floor bay window and the existing extension is some 6.2 metres, and extrapolating from the width of the proposed extension, the current distance between the first floor side elevation of No. 6 and the first floor bay window of No. 7 is some 8.9 metres. Appeal Decision APP/Z4310/D/18/3199583 3 10. Both of these distances are well within the limit specified in SPG10 of 15 metres. On my site visit, the current interface distances between the properties did not seem to be inappropriate in this context, and whilst walking around the wider area, I noticed that a number of other properties had interface distances much less than those specified in SPG10. On this basis, whilst I have had regard to the interface distance, I do not believe that it is necessarily determinative in this case. 11. The proposed first floor extension would be closer to the habitable rooms of 7 Bowfield Road than the existing side elevation of the property, but would have a lower, hipped roof than that of the main building, which would reduce its massing to some extent. Because of its subordinate size, design, massing and the materials and finishes proposed, the first floor extension would not represent a significant change to the existing appearance and impact of the side elevation of 6 Bowfield Road, or the relationship between No.s 6 and 7. For these reasons, it would not have a dominant or overbearing impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of number 7 Bowfield Road, and it would not create a poor outlook from that property. The proposed first floor extension would therefore accord with Policy H8 contained in the UDP and with guidance contained in SPG1. Conditions and Conclusion 12. In addition to the standard time limit condition the Council has suggested four conditions in the officer’s report, which I have considered in the light of government guidance. A condition to control the facing materials of the development would be necessary to protect the character and appearance of the area. In order to provide certainty, a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans would be necessary. A condition concerning obscured glazing and limited opening of the window in the side elevation of the extension would be necessary to protect the privacy of neighbours. However, a condition preventing the insertion of further windows in the side elevation, unless by way of a subsequent grant of planning permission, would not be necessary to protect the privacy of neighbours in this case, given what is allowed as permitted development. 13. I conclude, therefore, that subject to the identified conditions the appeal should be allowed. Andrew Parkin INSPECTOR