Two-storey rear extension and roof space conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 April 2021 by Benjamin Clarke BA (Hons.) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: Saturday, 08 May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/P3040/D/21/3268449 245 Loughborough Road, West Bridgford, Nottingham NG2 7EG • 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 Rahman against the decision of Rushcliffe Borough Council. • The application Ref: 20/02229/FUL, dated 10 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 10 December 2020. • The development proposed is a two-storey rear extension and roof space conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area; • the effect of the development upon the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with regards to privacy and outlook; and • the effect of the development upon protected species. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal site contains a detached house. Whilst there are some differences in the individual designs, they are of similar proportions and are set back from the highway edge by a consistent amount. 4. The proposed development would introduce a new roof shape by reason of the gradient of the roof slope being much greater than the existing roof and those utilised on the neighbouring houses. This would occur even though the development would not feature dormer windows. Although the height and eaves of the roof would not be changed, the proposed development would have a bulkier appearance. In result, the development would appear discordant owing to the proposal being divergent from the prevailing character. 5. This is a concern given that a unifying trend is the presence of similarly proportioned dwellings that are set back from the highway by consistent amounts. This means that the proposed development would appear discordant and incongruous within the surrounding area. Appeal Decision APP/P3040/D/21/3268449 2 6. The proposed roof development would utilise materials like the existing building. However, this would not overcome my previous concerns that emanate from the massing of the proposed development, rather than the palette of materials. 7. In addition, the appeal site is visible for significant proportions of Loughborough Road. Therefore, the discordant and incongruous form of the proposed development would be readily apparent from several different vantage points in the surrounding area. Therefore, the proposed development would appear to be a strident addition to the surrounding area. In consequence, the character of the surrounding area would be eroded. 8. There are some differences in roof shapes within the immediate surroundings of the appeal site. However, there is limited variation in terms of roof slope gradient. I have also been referred to some other buildings in the wider area that feature different designs that are similar to that utilised on the proposed development. However, these are generally located some distance away from the appeal site and are in areas that feature a more varied character of built form and, in some cases, feature greater amounts of screening. Therefore, they do not allow me to disregard my previous concerns. 9. I understand that planning permission has been granted for the installation of a mansard roof on a nearby public house. I do not have the full information regarding the planning circumstances of this before me, which lessens the weight that I can attribute to it. However, I note that this building is located in an area with a more varied character than the vicinity of the appeal site. In result, this permission would not result in a development that would have the same adverse effects as the scheme before me. 10. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have an adverse effect upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The development, in this regard, would conflict with Policy 10 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy (2014) (Local Plan Part 1) and Policy 1 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies (2019) (Local Plan Part 2). These, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that developments make a positive contribution to the public realm and sense of place; and that there be no significant adverse effect on amenity. Living conditions 11. The proposed development features a roof extension, in addition to an extension to the rear of the dwelling. By reason of the proposed roof shape, the proposed rear extension would have a massing akin to a three-storey building. 12. Whilst the existing dwelling is a detached house, the amount of separation distance between it and the neighbouring houses at 243a and 247 Loughborough Road is relatively small. In result, the proposed extension would be close to the rear windows of the neighbouring dwellings and gardens. 13. Due to the scale of the proposed development and proximity to the neighbouring properties, the development would have a significant overbearing effect that would result in a loss of outlook for both the users of the rear rooms of the neighbouring dwellings and their respective rear gardens. Appeal Decision APP/P3040/D/21/3268449 3 14. In addition, by reason of the roof shape, windows contained within the roof would be akin to those installed on the lower floors of the dwelling, although I do not believe that they can be described as dormer windows. 15. In result, views would be readily possible from the roof space of the building. Given that there would be some windows on the side of the dwelling, in addition to the rear, it would be possible for occupiers of the appeal site to gain an unrestricted view into the neighbouring properties. This would lead to an erosion of privacy experienced at the neighbouring property. 16. Whilst the dwelling features some existing windows on the rear elevation, the greater height of the proposed new windows and the presence of windows on the site of the building means that the proposed development would have a greater adverse effect on privacy levels. 17. I acknowledge the appellants suggestion that some of the windows could be fitted with obscure glazing. However, movement behind the glazing would still be perceptible and noise could be audible should the windows be left open. In consequence, the choice of glazing would not overcome the aforementioned adverse effects on privacy. 18. I also note the appellant’s suggestion that roof lights could be installed in the building. However, this would amount to a different scheme that has not been assessed by the Council, or subject to public consultation. As such, I do not believe that it would be reasonable to insist upon this amendment. 19. Although I note that the neighbouring properties feature a front garden, but as these are located adjacent to Loughborough Road, they lack privacy. In consequence, the rear gardens represent the only areas within the nearby properties where outdoors recreation, or play, might take place. In consequence, the loss of outlook and privacy to these areas would be particularly significant. 20. Both Nos. 243a and 247 appear to have been extended. However, the proposed development would have a different form than the surrounding extensions given its height, massing, and projection. Therefore, the presence of the existing extensions does not overcome the identified adverse effects. 21. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have an adverse effect upon the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The development, in this regard, would conflict with Policy 1 of the Local Plan Part 2. This, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that new developments should not be overbearing in relation to neighbouring properties and not lead to a loss of privacy. Effect on protected species 22. The appeal site contains some mature trees to the rear of the site, which form part of a longer ribbon of trees. In order to construct the proposed development, it is likely that significant alterations would need to be made to the existing roof of the dwelling. 23. By reason of the presence of the mature trees, there is a likelihood that this could form an attractive foraging ground for protected species, such as bats. Similarly, by reason of the style of dwelling, the roof space could provide an Appeal Decision APP/P3040/D/21/3268449 4 attractive roosting area for bats. The Council has also highlighted that it has records of bat activity within the appeal site’s environs. 24. By reason of the scale and scope of the proposed works, the development would disrupt the roof space and potentially adversely affect any bat roosts. This would constitute a significant adverse effect upon a protected species. 25. I have had regard to the appellant’s suggestion that if I were minded to allow this appeal, I could impose a condition that would require a survey into bats to be carried out and, if necessary, to secure mitigation. 26. However, given that at this juncture, it is not possible to identify the effect of the development upon the bat population, it is therefore equally not possible to state the type and scale and mitigation that would be required. In result, it is not possible to draft a condition of sufficient precision. 27. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have an adverse effect on a protected species. The development, in this regard, would conflict with Policy 38 of the Local Plan Part 1. This, amongst other matters, requires that all developments preserve, restore and re-create priority habitats and the protection and recovery of priority species. Other Matters 28. The proposed development would result in improved living conditions for the occupiers of the property. Whilst this is a matter of note, I am mindful that, in general, planning decisions need to be made in the public interest. In consequence, I consider that these benefits are outweighed by the previously identified harm. 29. I am also conscious that the proposal would provide an enlarged dwelling in an area served by public transport and other facilities. In addition, the development is unlikely to have an adverse effect on the highway system. Whilst these are matters of note, they are only some of all the matters that must be assessed and therefore do not outweigh my findings in respect of the main issues. 30. I note concerns raised by the appellant regarding the manner in which the Council considered the planning application. However, in assessing this appeal, I have limited my considerations to the planning matters before me. Conclusion 31. The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and protected species. The scheme would therefore conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the National Planning Policy Framework, 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. Benjamin Clarke INSPECTOR