Single storey front extension

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 27 April 2021 by David Cross BA(Hons) PgDip(Dist) TechIOA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/C2741/D/21/3268045 3 Dudley Court, York YO31 8LR • 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 and Mrs P Thain against the decision of City of York Council. • The application Ref 20/00960/FUL, dated 3 June 2020, was refused by notice dated 11 December 2020. • The development proposed is single storey front extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. In its reasons for refusal the Council refers to the policies of the City of York Publication Draft Local Plan 2018 (PDLP) and the City of York Development Control Local Plan 2005 (DCLP). Neither of these documents have been formally adopted as part of the development plan, although the DCLP has been approved for development control purposes and as such can be given weight in my consideration of this appeal. 3. The appellants indicate that the PDLP has been submitted for examination, although the examining Inspectors have invited the Council to consider withdrawing it. On that basis, whilst I have considered the proposal against the policies of the PDLP, it carries very limited weight in my consideration of this appeal. 4. I was requested to view the appeal site from the neighbouring property of 2 Dudley Court, and I was able to do so on my visit. Main Issues 5. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the: • Living conditions of residents of 2 Dudley Court with regards to outlook; • Provision of bin and cycle storage; and • Character and appearance of the area. Reasons Living Conditions 6. The appeal site has a tight-knit relationship with the adjoining property of 2 Dudley Court. A small external amenity area for No 2 is adjacent to the appeal site, and windows serving a lounge/study and bedroom at No 2 also look onto Appeal Decision APP/C2741/D/21/3268045 2 the site. The existing elevation of the appeal building is a dominant feature in views from the rear of No 2, although this is mitigated to a degree by the set- back from the site boundary. The amenity area is enclosed by a fence of approximately 1.8m high as well as higher brick enclosures including a boundary wall and a storage building. 7. The proposed extension would bring the built form of No 3 in close proximity to the site boundary. This would result in an increase in the height of built development of approximately 1m above the existing fence. As a result of the increase in height and the proximity to the site boundary, this would lead to a stark and oppressive feature in views from No 2, with significant harm to the outlook from that property. The retention of the fence would do little to lessen the harmful effect of the proposal. 8. The appellants refer to the existing sense of enclosure to the amenity area of No 2, and they consider that the proposal would complement this. However, rather than complementing this feature, the proposal would exacerbate the sense of enclosure to an unacceptable degree. 9. I conclude that the proposal would lead to significant harm to the living conditions of residents of No 2 with regards to outlook. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the amenity and space requirements of policies D1 and D11 of the PDLP, as well as GP1 and H7 of the DCLP. The proposal would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) with regards to creating places with a high standard of amenity. 10. The proposal would also be contrary to the advice of the City of York House Extensions and Alterations Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance 2012 (SPD) in respect of the effect of the extension on the outlook from neighbouring properties. Bin and Cycle Storage 11. As part of the proposal, a small outbuilding and an open amenity area would be included within the building. On the basis of the current site layout, these features could be used for bin and cycle storage. Although there is an open garden to the rear of the host building which would be retained, this is accessed through the dwelling and would not be suitable or convenient for bin or cycle storage. 12. The appellants submit that bin storage currently takes place in a communal yard area near to the appeal site, and I saw that bins were stored in this area at the time of my visit. However, I also saw that these bins gave the area a cluttered appearance and also affected the parking of vehicles. As such, I consider that the provision of bin storage within the curtilage of the host property away from the communal area should be retained so that bins can be more appropriately stored. There is no planning condition limiting the use of the outbuilding and amenity area to a bin store. However, it can still be used for that purpose and its loss as a result of the appeal proposal would mean that this facility would not be available in the future. 13. The open amenity area is also currently available for cycle storage. Whilst this area may not have been specifically identified as being for cycle storage on previously approved plans for the site, that does not mean that it is not Appeal Decision APP/C2741/D/21/3268045 3 available for that purpose. The concerns of the Council in respect to the loss of cycle storage are therefore well-founded. 14. I conclude that the proposal would not make sufficient provision for bin and cycle storage with significant harm to the living conditions of future residents and the amenity of the area. The proposal would therefore conflict with policies D1 and D11 of the PDLP, as well as GP1 and H7 of the DCLP. The proposal would also be contrary to the Framework with regards to achieving well- designed places with a high standard of amenity. Character and Appearance 15. The proposal would reduce the spacing between the appeal site and nearby buildings at ground floor level. However, the extension would not be readily visible from the public realm. Furthermore, due to the tight-knit character of this area, the reduction in the spacing between buildings at ground floor level would not appear to be unduly out of context. 16. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore not be contrary to the design considerations of policies D1 and D11 of the PDLP as well as policies GP1 and H7 of the DCLP. The proposal would also not conflict with the Framework in respect of achieving well-designed places or the SPD in respect of the effect on the character of the area and the street scene. Other Matters 17. I have had regard to the benefits of the proposal. The appellants refer to the internal reorganisation of the property to facilitate a more logical layout. However, it has not been demonstrated that the existing layout is unfit for purpose, and potential improvements to the layout of the dwelling therefore carry only limited weight in favour of the proposal. Conclusion 18. Notwithstanding my conclusion in respect of character and appearance, the proposal would lead to significant harm to the living conditions of residents of No 2 as well as in regard to the provision of cycle and bin storage. These adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. 19. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. David Cross INSPECTOR