Development proposed is: a two-storey side extension

1 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 July 2018 by Martin H Seddon BSc DipTP MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/J0540/D/18/3201465 1A Eyebury Road, Eye, Peterborough, PE6 7TB  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 H Short against the decision of Peterborough City Council.  The application Ref: 18/00065/HHFUL, dated 10 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 28 February 2018.  The development proposed is: a two-storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The Council’s decision notice refers to the proposed extension being overbearing to the dwelling to the “north”. However, the dwelling in question is located approximately to the south of the proposed extension. The appellant has referred to that dwelling as No.3A. However, from my site visit it appeared to be No.3 Eyebury Road. Main Issues 3. The main issues are:  the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbours in respect of outlook and privacy, and  the effect on the living conditions of future occupants of the dwelling regarding daylight received by proposed bedroom 3. Reasons 4. No.1A Eyebury Road is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling with a single storey side extension and a rear conservatory. It is located within a residential area and sited at a right angle to the gable end wall of No.3 Eyebury Road. Effect on the living conditions of neighbours 5. The appeal site has an extant planning permission for a two-storey side extension. This would have a similar separation distance from the gable end wall of No.3 Eyebury Road of around 2.5 metres at ground floor level as the appeal proposal. However, the first floor would be set back from the gable end wall of No.3 by around a further 2 metres, whereas the appeal proposal Appeal Decision APP/J0450/D/18/3201465 2 indicates no set back. The approved extension would also project further into the rear garden of No.1A than the extension subject to appeal. 6. The gable end wall of No.3 has windows, which the Council advises serve secondary rooms, except for those providing light to a kitchen and a first-floor bedroom. The proposed side extension would face around half of this opposing gable end wall. There would be an obscure glazed window in the extension facing the wall. The Council considers that, when open, this would allow overlooking of the passageway that serves No.3. Despite this, I consider that it would not be likely to cause any significant loss of privacy for neighbours. 7. However, the extension would increase the sense of enclosure at first floor level for neighbours at No.3 because of its proximity. I consider that it would unduly harm the outlook from the first-floor bedroom of No.3 because of the lack of a set-back for the extension at first floor level. 8. The proposal would be contrary to policy CS16 of the Peterborough Core Strategy which, amongst other things, indicates that new development should not result in unacceptable impact on the amenities of occupiers of any nearby properties. It would also conflict with policy PP3 of the Peterborough Planning Policies Development Plan Document which seeks to ensure that the impact of new development is not overbearing for neighbours. Effect on the living conditions of future occupants 9. The approved extension was for a 3rd bedroom at first floor level having 2 windows, one of which would be obscure glazed to prevent overlooking of No. 1A Back Lane. The appeal extension indicates a 3rd and 4th bedroom at first floor level. Bedroom 3 would have an obscure glazed window facing the gable end wall of No.3 Eyebury Road at a separation distance of only around 2.5 metres. 10. The appellant advises that the proposed window to bedroom 3 would provide enough illumination and the ventilation level would meet the requirements of the Building Regulations. Nevertheless, it would be the only window serving that room. It would provide a poor outlook and would receive minimal daylight. I consider that the living conditions in bedroom 3 would be unduly oppressive and that the proposal would conflict with policy PP4 of the Peterborough Planning Policies Development Plan Document. This requires that proposals for new development are designed to ensure that the needs of future residents are provided for. Conclusion 11. I have taken all other matters raised into account, including the lack of objection from neighbours and the appellant’s desire to provide additional accommodation. However, for the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed. Martin H Seddon INSPECTOR