First floor side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 June 2018 by A Parkin BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/N4720/D/18/3199767 92 New Bank St. Morley, Leeds LS27 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 P Newton against the decision of Leeds City Council.  The application Ref 17/07637/FU, dated 17 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 26 January 2018.  The development proposed is a first floor side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The Council’s first reason for refusal contains a mistake. It refers to the proposed development as being ‘in close proximity to the neighbouring boundaries at No's 90 and 92 New Bank Street and results in an over dominant and overbearing feature to the detriment of the residential amenity of the occupants at those properties.’ As 92 New Bank Street is the appeal property, it cannot have a boundary with itself. 3. The Appraisal section of the officer’s report refers to ‘severe overdominance to the property at No. 94’ and ‘significant harm to neighbouring properties from overdominance’. The second reason for refusal refers to No. 90 and No. 94 New Bank Street. For these reasons, and from my site visit, I am satisfied that the Council intended to refer to No. 94 New Bank Street instead of the appeal property in their first reason for refusal, and I have considered the appeal on this basis. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 90 and 94 New Bank Street, having regard to its visual impact and any effect it may have in terms of overshadowing. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a semi-detached house on the southern side of New Bank Street, a residential street containing a mix of house types, and which is generally flat in this vicinity. 6. Responding to the slight curve of New Bank Street, the appeal property and its joined neighbour No. 94 are in a ‘stepped’ arrangement. The appeal property is set back a short distance from No. 94 at the front and projects a short Appeal Decision APP/N4720/D/18/3199767 2 distance at the rear. No. 90 is of a different design, which means that it is set back from the front and rear of the appeal property. 7. The appeal property includes a ground floor side and rear extension. The side extension part is set back from the front of the building and adjoins the boundary with No. 90. The rear part is joined to the side part and projects some three metres from the original rear elevation of the building. It spans the full width of the rear garden. The appeal scheme would see the addition of a first floor to provide new accommodation on top of this existing extension. 8. As a result of its height and position, close to the boundaries with No. 90 and No. 94 and projecting significantly to the rear of these buildings, the proposed extension would be an over-dominant and overbearing feature. It would adversely affect the outlook from the rear rooms of the next door houses, particularly No. 94 because of its closeness to the proposed extension, and from both rear gardens. 9. Furthermore, it would also cause overshadowing to parts of the rear elevations and gardens of these neighbouring properties, at certain times of day. The relative positions of the buildings would mean that No. 90 would be affected in the morning and No. 94, would be affected in the evening. Neither party has provided any detailed analysis to show the precise effects. However, in view of the scale and siting of the proposed extension, it appears to me that the effect on the rear gardens of both properties would be significant and harmful. The rear elevation of No. 94 would also be particularly affected due to its closeness to the proposed extension. Any effect arising from the existing single storey extension will be far more limited. 10. I am also mindful that the Council state that the proposed extension would breach the 45 Degree Code contained in the Leeds ‘Householder Design Guide’ Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2012. I have no reason to doubt this claim, which is not disputed. The 45 Degree Code is intended to protect the occupiers of neighbouring properties from a loss of outlook or overshadowing. The breach would be more significant in relation to the joined property No. 94, but would also occur in relation to No. 90, even given the separation distance provided by the driveway to that property. While conflict with such guidance does not, in itself, demonstrate that a scheme is unacceptable, in this instance it reinforces my concerns regarding the appeal scheme. 11. For these reasons, the proposed 2-storey extension would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of the next door properties, and would be contrary to Policy GP5 of the Unitary Development Plan Review 2006, to Policy P10 of the Core Strategy 2014, both of which seek to protect residential amenity, and to Policy HDG2 of the Leeds ‘Householder Design Guide’ SPD 2012. Conclusion 12. For the reasons set out above the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 90 and No. 94 New Bank Street and the appeal is therefore dismissed. Andrew Parkin INSPECTOR