Front and rear extension to a detached house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 March 2021 by C McDonagh BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/D2320/D/20/3265961 36 Forsythia Drive, Clayton-Le-Woods PR6 7DF • 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 Hasan Yousaf-Shepherd against the decision of Chorley Borough Council. • The application Ref 20/01039/FULHH, dated 1 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 4 December 2020. • The development proposed is a front and rear extension to a detached house. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of No.21 Homestead with regard to outlook. Reasons 3. 36 Forsythia Drive is a two-storey, detached dwelling with a detached garage forward of the front elevation. The majority of the garden area is located to the rear with the side elevation of the property located close to the boundary with the rear garden of No.21 Homestead. The proposal includes a single storey rear extension and a part two-storey part single-storey extension to the side and front of the property which would link the garage to the host building while converting it to additional living space. 4. The extension would be of significant height and depth. While there may be some existing views of the garage from the rear of No.21, this is currently single storey. The substantial increase of mass at first floor level would introduce an overbearing and visually dominant feature which would be perceived as a large structure adjacent to, and extending across, a large proportion of the width of the rear garden and in views from the rear windows of No.21. This would reduce outlook from these rooms at the rear and create a feeling of enclosure within the rear garden which would diminish the enjoyment of these spaces. The dominating presence of the proposal would therefore detract from the quality of the living environment for occupiers of No.21. 5. While the separation of the first-floor element of the extension to the front may fall within the distance advised in the Householder Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD), this figure is a minimum. Appeal Decision APP/D2320/D/20/3265961 2 Moreover, the SPD goes on to advise that any extension can have a noticeable effect on the amenities of neighbours. In particular there can be an overbearing effect on or a poor outlook created for neighbours where main windows to habitable rooms face onto new development. Therefore, meeting the distance advised does not mean the proposal is automatically acceptable as a matter of course as each proposal must be assessed on its individual merits. 6. To conclude, the proposal would harm the living conditions of occupiers of No.21 Homesteads with regard to outlook. The extension would therefore be contrary to Policy HS5 of the Chorley Local Plan, which seeks to ensure there is no unacceptable adverse effect on the amenity of neighbouring properties. The proposal would also be contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which seeks high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Other Matters 7. The appellant has advised that no objections were received from the occupiers of No.21 Homestead. However, the Framework is clear in applying judgement to both present and future users of land and buildings, and the lack of objection is a neutral matter rather than carrying weight in favour of the scheme. Conclusion 8. The proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.21 Homestead. As such it would conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. C McDonagh INSPECTOR