Erection of single storey and two storey extensions to rear and dormer to side

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 May 2021 by F Cullen BA(Hons) MSc DipTP MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/E2001/D/21/3268659 5 Swanland Road, Hessle HU13 0LS • 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 K Mahmood against the decision of East Riding of Yorkshire Council. • The application Ref: 20/03262/PLF, dated 2 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 14 December 2020. • The development proposed is erection of single storey and two storey extensions to rear and dormer to side. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. I have used the description of the proposed development as stated in the Council’s decision notice and the appellant’s appeal form in the banner heading above as it is more precise. Main Issues 3. The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building; and, • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of No 7 Swanland Road, with regard to outlook and light. Reasons 4. The appeal property, Number 5 Swanland Road (No 5) forms the left hand half of a pair of two-storey, semi-detached houses, which possess matching gable projections at the rear. No 5 is constructed of brick with render to the front and a pantile roof. It is situated within a moderately sized plot, set back from the highway, with a driveway at the front and a garden at the rear. 5. The space at the rear of No 5 is generally enclosed by close-boarded timber fences between approximately 1.5-2m in height, although at the time of my site visit a new fence was being installed along the eastern boundary. 6. The Council concluded that the proposed dormer window would have a negligible impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and Appeal Decision APP/E2001/D/21/3268659 2 would not harm the living conditions of occupiers of No 3 Swanland Road, with regard to privacy. From the evidence before me, I have no reason to disagree. I shall therefore focus my considerations of the proposed development to that comprising the single-storey and two-storey extensions. Character and appearance of the host building 7. Together, the proposed extensions would result in the addition of substantial built form to the property. The main pitched roof element of the two-storey extension would continue and be in keeping with the form and design of the existing gable projection. However, the flat roof section of the two-storey extension would have an awkward junction with the rear elevation of the building and would not harmonise with the design aesthetic of the property’s roofscape. As such, it would appear as a sizeable discordant addition of reduced design quality which would not sit comfortably on the host property. Whilst the use of matching materials and the continuity of the fascia boards may mitigate this effect to a degree, it would not overcome the fundamental incongruity of the flat-roof form of this part of the extension. 8. The appellant contends that the proposed flat roof would be far less dominant and overbearing than if a pitched roof was installed over the full width of the two-storey extension. Nevertheless, in the absence of any details of such a proposal, I cannot evaluate its effects in comparison to the appeal proposal before me. Moreover, even if I accepted this line of argument, it does not justify the acceptance of the proposed development. I have considered the appeal proposal on its own merits and found that it would cause harm. 9. I acknowledge that the extensions would be at the rear of the property and, therefore, would only be viewed by a limited number of people. Nonetheless, Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is clear in seeking to ensure that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, regardless of how visible the development would be from public routes. Consequently, this matter carries little weight in favour of the appeal. 10. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property. As such, it would conflict with Policy ENV1 of the East Riding Local Plan 2012-2029 Strategy Document 2016 (ERLP), in so far as it requires development to achieve a high quality of design. It would also not accord with Paragraph 127 of the Framework referred to above. Living conditions of occupiers of No 7 Swanland Road 11. No 7 Swanland Road (No 7) adjoins and lies to the west of No 5. The proposed single-storey extension would be approximately 3.1m in height and would extend 5m in length along the shared boundary with No 7. I note that, as stated in the Council’s Design Guidance for House Extensions (the Design Guidance), this projection would be 1.5m beyond the suggested length for single-storey extensions if directly adjoining a side boundary. 12. The close proximity of the single-storey extension to the shared boundary, along with its considerable length, height, overall massing and continuous blank form, would cause it to be a dominant and unduly overbearing structure when viewed from the adjacent ground floor window and rear private amenity Appeal Decision APP/E2001/D/21/3268659 3 space of No 7. This would result in an oppressive and uncomfortable sense of enclosure which would substantially diminish the outlook of occupiers of No 7. 13. In addition, the single-storey extension would result in overshadowing of the adjacent ground floor window and private amenity space of No 7. Taking into account the setback nature of this part of the elevation, this would substantially reduce the amount of light received through the window into the room and would have an adverse effect on the enjoyment of the room’s use. The overshadowing would also decrease the degree of light received by the garden space nearest to the house and similarly lessen the pleasure of its use. Whilst the south facing orientation of the rear of the properties would mitigate these effects to an extent, they would still be of a level which would materially harm the living conditions of occupiers of No 7. 14. The appellant asserts that a 3m single-storey extension could be added to the rear of No 5 without the need for planning permission. Be that as it may, in my judgement, any such extension would not be as substantial as the totality of the proposed development before me now and it would be unlikely to have such a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No 7, with regard to outlook and light. 15. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No 7, with regard to outlook and light. As such, it would be contrary to Policy ENV1 of the ERLP which, amongst other things, requires that development has regard to the amenity of existing or proposed properties. It would also conflict with the Council’s Design Guidance referred to above and Paragraph 127 of the Framework which, amongst other things, seeks to create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Other Matters 16. I note that there is a discrepancy between the proposed rear elevation and section when compared with the proposed side elevation (western side) as illustrated on drawing Ref: Proposed plans and elevations - SR / 02 / 20. This matter has also been highlighted by the Council. It is imperative that plans are accurate to avoid uncertainty about what is proposed. However, it has been possible for me to establish and comment on what is proposed as a consequence of considering the plans and reports together. As I am dismissing the appeal, as distinct from allowing it, it has not been necessary for me to consider the accuracy of the plans any further. 17. I am aware that no representations were made by neighbours regarding the design of the proposal; no objection was received from the current occupiers of No 7, with the appellant asserting that they were supportive of the proposal; and that Hessle Town Council had no observations. However, a lack of objections to the proposal does not attest to a lack of harm, nor does it make the proposed development acceptable. In my determination of the appeal, I must have regard to the potential effects of the proposal on both existing and future occupiers of adjoining and adjacent properties and I have found harm. 18. I am aware of the appellant’s assertion that the interpretation and application of development plan policies by the Council must be transparent and consistent. Nonetheless, no examples of any comparable proposals which have Appeal Decision APP/E2001/D/21/3268659 4 been granted by the Council have been cited by the appellant. Furthermore, I have concurred with the Council’s decision in my determination of the appeal. 19. I note the appellant’s comments regarding the, allegedly, poor and conflicting advice received from the Council and the unfair way it determined the application. However, these are not matters to which I can give any significant weight in the context of an appeal under Section 78 of the Act. Conclusion 20. The proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host building and the living conditions of occupiers of No 7, with regard to outlook and light. This would be in conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate that 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. F Cullen INSPECTOR