Two-storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 September 2018 by Ian McHugh Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M3455/D/18/3200552 22 Esparanto Way, Smallthorne, Stoke-on-Trent, ST6 1SF  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 W Reeves against the decision of Stoke-on-Trent City Council.  The application Ref 62209 dated 8 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 5 April 2018.  The development proposed is a two-storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey side extension at 22 Esparanto Way, Smallthorne, Stoke-on-Trent, ST6 1SF, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 62209, dated 8 February 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: Drawing Number 1078/A1/01 Rev G. 3) The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the dwelling and on the streetscene. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached two-storey dwelling within a residential estate. The dwelling is positioned close to the junction of Esparanto Way and Community Drive/Haven Avenue. The side boundary of the property, which is shared with number 20 Esparanto Way (number 20), is splayed. Consequently, the space between the side wall of the dwelling and the boundary is wider at the front than at the rear. 4. The proposal is to erect a two-storey side extension. The side wall of the extension would have a slight dog-leg, as it runs parallel with the side boundary. A consequence of this means that the proposal includes a ‘faceted’ hipped roof. The Council considers that the roof design would fail to integrate satisfactorily with the existing dwelling and that it would be harmful to the appearance of the dwelling and the streetscene. The Council contends that the Appeal Decision APP/M3455/D/18/3200552 2 proposal would conflict with Policy CSP1 of its adopted Core Strategy 2009 and with Policy R23 of the adopted Supplementary Planning Document – Urban Design Guidance 2010. These policies seek (amongst other things) to ensure that new development is of high quality design; and extensions to dwellings are well designed and contribute positively to the character of the townscape. 5. Although in some respects, the design of the roof would be at odds with the standard hipped roof appearance of the majority of other dwellings in the vicinity of the appeal site, the design approach has been largely dictated by the shape of the plot. Whilst, the extension would be partially visible from Esparanto Way, particularly when approaching the dwelling from the west, wider views of it would be screened by the neighbouring property at number 20 and, in my opinion, it would not be an unduly prominent feature. I consider that the rather unique design of the roof would not render the proposal unacceptable. Other Matter 6. An objection to the proposal has been made by the occupants of number 20, who consider that the proposal would result in loss of light, outlook and privacy to their kitchen and landing area, both of which contain windows that would face the proposed extension. I viewed the proposal from both the kitchen and landing of number 20 at my site visit. 7. The kitchen, which has been extended, has two sources of natural light, the window on the side that would face towards the extension, and a further window on the rear elevation, facing towards the rear garden. Although there would be some impact on the light to and the outlook from the side window, the kitchen is relatively small and I consider that any loss of light or outlook arising from the proposal would not be significantly harmful because the room has two aspects. With regard to the effect on the landing area, as this is not a main habitable space, I consider that any impact would not be unacceptably harmful to the living conditions of the occupants. 8. As no windows are proposed on the side of the proposed extension, there would be no overlooking into the side windows of number 20. Conditions 9. The Council has suggested conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed. These have been considered in the light of the advice contained within the Planning Practice Guidance. 10. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 11. To ensure a satisfactory appearance, a condition requiring the use of external materials to match the existing dwelling is also necessary Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal should be allowed. Ian McHugh INSPECTOR