Single storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 27 April 2021 by G Sibley MPLAN MRTPI Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/R1845/D/21/3268589 3 Sebright Green, Wolverley, Kidderminster DY11 5UB • 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 Miss Giverny Gallagher against the decision of Wyre Forest District Council. • The application Ref 20/0992/HOU, dated 25 November 2020, was refused by notice dated 26 January 2021. • The development proposed is single storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey side and rear extension at 3 Sebright Green, Wolverley, Kidderminster DY11 5UB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/0992/HOU, dated 25 November 2020, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: Location Plan Ref: SO 8279; Proposed Plans DWG No 03 and Proposed Elevations DWG No 04. 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. Main Issue 3. The impact of the proposed development upon the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of No 2 Sebright Green in relation to light and outlook. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. Due to its depth and siting, the proposed extension would breach a 45-degree line taken from the rear French patio doors of No 2. Therefore, it would be contrary to the Council’s Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (adopted 2015). The SPD sets out that the 45 degree ‘code’ should be applied to preserve the levels of light and outlook enjoyed by the occupants of neighbouring properties. In this case No 3 is located to the north of No 2, Appeal Decision APP/R1845/D/21/3268589 2 therefore despite its height and depth the proposed extension would not materially affect sunlight received at the rear of No 2. 5. The proposed extension would be built along the shared boundary between the two dwellings which is currently divided by a brick wall approximately 2 metres high, with tall vegetation adjacent to it. Due to its height and siting the proposal would result in the loss of some day light to the ground floor rear room of No 2 compared to the existing wall and planting. Nevertheless, given the slope of the roof and the relatively shallow depth of the proposed extension, the reduction in the amount of daylight that room would receive would be limited and would not make it an unappealing room to use. The scale of the proposed extension would not therefore result in a detrimental loss of light to the occupiers of No 2. 6. The existing boundary wall and vegetation also limit the outlook from the ground floor rear room and rear patio of No 2. Given the height and depth of the proposed extension, it would not enclose the rear of the property to the point where it would create a significantly less pleasant and uninviting place for the occupiers to use. Furthermore, their outlook over the long and open garden to the rear would be largely unaffected by the proposal. Therefore, the proposed extension would not appear overbearing or significantly adversely affect the outlook from No 2. 7. Consequently, whilst the proposal would conflict with the 45-degree code in the SPD, in this instance it would not have a serious adverse effect on the neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions in respect of light and outlook. As a result, it would not conflict with Policy SAL.UP8 of the Site Allocations and Policies Local Plan 2006-2026 (adopted 2013). Other Matters 8. I note the main parties’ points that a taller but less deep extension could be constructed as permitted development, however I have found that the proposal would be acceptable on its own merits having regard to the existing conditions on site. Therefore, it has not been necessary for me to consider the potential fall-back position further. Conditions 9. In addition to the statutory commencement condition, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area it is also necessary to ensure that the development is completed in accordance with the approved plans and for the materials used to match those used in the existing dwelling. Conclusion and Recommendation 10. There are no material considerations that indicate the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed. G Sibley APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Appeal Decision APP/R1845/D/21/3268589 3 Inspector’s Decision 11. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and, on that basis, I agree with the recommendation and allow the appeal, subject to the conditions set out in the report. L McKay INSPECTOR