Bedroom over existing flat roof garage

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 27 April 2021 by S Witherley CIHCM MRTPI Decision by Chris Preston BA (Hons) BPI MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/W4515/D/21/3269550 7 Grand Parade, Tynemouth NE30 4JS • 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 Peter Wilson against the decision of North Tyneside Council. • The application Ref 20/01742/FULH, dated 23 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 15 December 2020. • The development proposed is Bedroom over existing flat roof garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Bedroom over existing flat roof garage at 7 Grand Parade, Tynemouth, NE30 4JS in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/01742/FULH, dated 23 October 2020, and the plans submitted with it, 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 building. 3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans; Proposed Plans, Elevations and Roof Plan and Site Layout, Drawing No. A/3401/201 Scale 1:100, October 2020 - Location Plan, Drawing No. A/3401/00G2, Scale 1:1250, October 2020. 4. The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the window in the first floor en-suite located on the south west elevation has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor level in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. 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. Appeal Decision APP/W4515/D/21/3269550 2 Main Issue 3. The effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the occupants of No. 2 Abbey Drive with particular regard to light, outlook and overbearing effect. Reasons 4. No. 7 is a large two storey detached dwelling with attached single storey flat roof garage. It is located on the corner of Grande Parade and Abbey Drive, with its principal elevation overlooking Grande Parade. Its flank wall overlooks Abbey Drive with its overall design in keeping with the semi-detached linked properties along this street. The majority of properties along here are semi – detached with evidence of first floor additions above the linked garages which has resulted in some terracing. 5. The Council has raised no issues in relation to the character and appearance of the proposal nor have they raised any concerns regarding the impact of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of No. 8 Grande Parade or any other surrounding neighbours. Their concerns focus solely on the living conditions of occupiers at No. 2 Abbey Drive. 6. The proposal would extend above the flat roof garage to provide an additional bedroom and terrace area to the front of the property. The area to the rear of the appeal site comprises a small paved courtyard which overlooks the shared boundary of the rear garden of No. 2 Abbey Drive. The neighbouring property at No. 8 Grande Parade is built close to the shared boundary with No. 7. 7. Given the small paved courtyard at the rear of No. 7 along with the proximity of its shared boundaries with the adjoining properties at No. 2 Abbey Drive and No. 8 Grande Parade, the area to the rear of No. 7 feels enclosed. Furthermore, the enclosed situation is aggravated by the distance between the rear elevation of No. 2 Abbey Drive and the flank wall of No. 8 Grande Parade. This contributes to the existing outlook and feeling of enclosure within this part of the rear streetscape. Consequently, given the very specific site circumstances and relationship between these neighbouring properties, the existing gap above the garage of No. 7 does not alleviate the enclosed outlook and sense of enclosure that presently exists as a result of the current built form. 8. The proposal would not therefore worsen the existing situation or materially increase the feeling of enclosure for occupiers of No. 2 Abbey Drive than what is already experienced. Whilst the outlook for these occupiers may change as a result of the proposal, this change does not in itself equate to harm. 9. Given the orientation of No. 2 along with the existing built form within this part of the rear streetscape, the occupiers of No. 2 already experience loss of light into the windows upon the rear elevation. The proposal would be set away from the rear elevation of No. 2 and this separation along with the orientation of properties would ensure that the proposal would not materially worsen the existing levels of light into and experienced from these rear rooms. 10.Having had regard to the very specific site circumstances of this case, I am satisfied that the proposal, given its size, height, design and separation distance from the neighbouring property No.2 Abbey Drive, would not materially worsen Appeal Decision APP/W4515/D/21/3269550 3 the existing outlook of those occupiers nor would it result in an increased sense of enclosure or effect the levels of light experienced by the occupiers of No. 2. The proposal therefore meets with the aims of the Design Quality Supplementary Planning Document (2018) which seeks developments to maintain a reasonable outlook between neighbouring properties and that extensions should maintain reasonable levels of light into habitable rooms. 11.I conclude therefore that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupants of No. 2 Abbey Drive with particular regard to light, outlook and overbearing effect. The proposal therefore complies with Policies DM6.1 and DM6.2 of the North Tyneside Local Plan (2017) which overall seeks to provide a good standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers. Other Matters 12.I note that both support and objections were received. The objection relating to outlook, overbearing and light have been addressed as part of the main issue above. The objection regarding loss of view and value in property prices, raises ‘non planning’ matters that cannot be addressed as part of this decision. Conditions 13.In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings and to require that the development is carried out in accordance with them as this provides certainty. To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the finished building, a condition is attached to require that the external materials match those of the existing dwelling. 14.The Council has suggested a further condition that seeks to secure obscure glazing to be fitted to the en-suite window located on the south west elevation. This condition is considered necessary in order to protect the neighbouring living conditions. Conclusion 15.For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, it is recommended that the appeal should be allowed. S Witherley APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 16.I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and, on that basis, agree that the appeal should be allowed. Chris Preston INSPECTOR