Single storey rear extension, first storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 August 2020 by Hilary Senior BA (Hons) MCD MRTPI by Susan Ashworth BA (Hons) BPL MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 9 September 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4310/D/20/3247834 53 South Barcombe Road, Liverpool L16 7QE • 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 Jonathan Ingman against the decision of Liverpool City Council. • The application Ref 19H/2864, dated 27 October 2019, was refused by notice dated 7 February 2020. • The development proposed is single storey rear extension, first storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Procedural Matters 3. In its decision notice, the Council cited Policy H8 of the emerging Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 (the emerging LP). The emerging LP has been submitted for examination. However, there are unresolved objections to the policies relevant to this appeal. Therefore, as advised by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the emerging policy carries limited weight in my determination of this appeal. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 51 South Barcombe Road, and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of 53 South Barcombe Road and surrounding area. Reasons Living Conditions 5. The proposal is to construct a two-storey extension to the rear of an existing flat roofed extension; the construction of a pitched roof over that extension and Appeal Decision APP/Z4310/D/20/3247834 2 the construction of a single-storey flat roofed extension across the rear of the dwelling to utilise the full width of the plot. 6. My attention is drawn to the House Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance document (the SPG), which indicates that to ensure single-storey rear extensions do not overshadow or have an overbearing effect on neighbouring properties, planning permission will not normally be granted for extensions which project in excess of 3m from the original rear main wall of the dwelling where it abuts the party boundary. 7. The adjoining property, 51 South Barcombe Road, has been extended through the addition of a single-storey outrigger, although this does not extend to the shared boundary. Whilst the properties are separated by a timber fence, the proposed extension would be higher than the fence and be seen above it. Due to the proposal extending to the shared boundary and its height, the 4 metre extension would reduce the outlook from the ground floor windows and, as there is already a single storey extension, it would have an unduly enclosing effect. Consequently, the proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. 8. I note that larger rear extensions can, in certain circumstances, be achieved under permitted development rights. However, given the proposal would project beyond the original side elevation of the property, I am unconvinced that this would be the case in this instance. As such, there is no conclusive evidence before me to demonstrate that if the appeal were dismissed then alterations would be made to the property that would benefit from permitted development rights. Therefore, I give this suggestion very limited weight, which is not sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified above. 9. For the above reasons I conclude therefore that the proposed development would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of 51 South Barcombe Road and would conflict with policy H8 of the City of Liverpool Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the SPD which seek to ensure that proposals would not cause a loss of amenity for adjacent residents. Character and appearance 10. South Barcombe Road is characterised by brick and render semi-detached properties with tiled hipped roofs and open frontages. Their similar styles and set back from the road give a consistent rhythm to the area. 11. In order to retain the balance of semi-detached houses, prevent the linking of non-terraced houses and to ensure that extensions are subordinate to the original dwelling, the SPG indicates that first floor side extensions should be set back from the original house by a minimum of 1m and include a pitched roof to match the original house. To emphasise the reduced scale of the extension the ridge line must be correspondingly lowered in conjunction with the 1m set back. 12. In this case the first floor of the existing extension, which pre-dates the introduction of the SPG, is not set back at first floor level. Its projection beyond the front elevation of the host dwelling and its flat roofed design does not meet the current guidance in the SPG. However, while this is the established situation, it is not proposed to set the ridgeline of the new roof down in accordance with the SPG. Accordingly, the extended roof would appear Appeal Decision APP/Z4310/D/20/3247834 3 as a dominant feature that would not be subordinate to the original dwelling. Moreover, given it would extend up to the common boundary with No 55, the roof form proposed would not prevent the linking of the properties. 13. Whilst it is acknowledged that the existing two storey flat roofed side extension is not reflective of the character of the property and that the introduction of a hipped roof would be more in keeping with it, this does not outweigh the harm caused by the proposal. 14. I note the appellant’s contention that the proposed alterations to the roof, with no change in ridge height, is necessary due to the structural requirements of the proposal. However, I am not convinced that the proposal is the only way that the property could be extended to meet the needs of the occupiers and that a scheme that would be less harmful to the character and appearance of the area could not be designed. 15. My attention has been drawn to examples of similar extensions that have been constructed at other properties locally, although these examples do not reflect the predominant character of the area. Moreover, I am not aware of the circumstances or policy context in which they were approved. In addition, from the site visit, I also noted examples of extensions that incorporated a change in the ridge height of the roof. 16. I conclude therefore that the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of 53 South Barcombe Road and surrounding area, and would conflict with policy H8 of the City of Liverpool Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the SPD which together seek to ensure that proposals respect the character of the existing dwelling and adjacent properties. Other Matters 17. I note the concerns of the neighbour in respect of damage to their property and the appellant’s comments in respect of the Party Wall Act. However, these are civil matters that fall outside the scope of this appeal. Conclusion and Recommendation 18. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal is dismissed. Hilary Senior APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 19. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Susan Ashworth INSPECTOR