First floor rear bedroom extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 July 2018 by Helen Hockenhull BA(Hons) B.Pl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 8th August 2018. Appeal Ref: APP/M2372/D/18/3204519 31 Millham Street, Blackburn BB1 6EU  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 Ishak Patel against the decision of Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council.  The application Ref 10/18/0390, dated 23 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 22 May 2018.  The development proposed is a first floor rear bedroom extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. I am advised by the appellant that the original planning application the subject of this appeal formed a resubmission of an identical application refused by the Council. The reasons for refusal in the appeal case refer to the issue of design which was not a matter in dispute with the earlier submission. In so doing the appellant considers that the Council has acted unreasonably but does not wish to pursue any award of costs. Whilst I have noted this position, as the matter of design forms part of the reason for refusal, I consider it appropriate to examine this issue in the consideration of this appeal. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this case are:  whether the proposal would amount to overdevelopment with particular regard to the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties in terms of outlook, loss of daylight and privacy;  the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Reasons Overdevelopment and living conditions 4. The appeal site comprises a mid-terraced dwelling located on Millham Street, Blackburn. The street slopes down to the south east so that the neighbouring property at No. 33 is in a higher position and No. 29 in a lower position than Appeal Decision APP/M2372/D/18/3204519 2 the appeal property. The house has been extended to the rear with a single storey flat roof extension and a dormer in the roof space. 5. Policy 8 of the Blackburn Local Plan Part 2 (LPP2) 2015 amongst other things states that development will be permitted where it would secure a satisfactory level of amenity and safety for surrounding uses and occupants. The Council’s Residential Design Guide 2012 provides further detailed guidance in support of this policy. 6. The neighbouring dwelling to the appeal property, No. 33 Millham Street, has an existing two storey flat roof extension with ground and first floor windows directly facing the appeal site. The proposed first floor extension would project approximately 4.2 metres from the rear elevation of the appeal property and be sited around 1.25 metres from the existing extension at No. 33. I accept that the existing single storey extension at No. 31 already affects light and outlook from the ground floor windows in the neighbouring extension. The proposed first floor extension would, bearing in mind it’s siting, further reduce daylight and outlook from these windows. 7. First floor windows in the neighbouring extension are obscure glazed. As no windows are proposed in the side elevation of the appeal proposal, there would be no material effect in terms of loss of privacy or outlook. With regard to loss of light to these windows, due to the difference in levels, the eaves of the proposed extension would be positioned around the centre of these facing windows. Together with the proposed hipped roof, this would to an extent assist to reduce the impact in terms of loss of light. However bearing in mind the orientation of the two dwellings, the appeal proposal would still in my view result in a loss of daylight to these windows particularly in the morning. This would adversely affect the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. 8. The proposed extension would be sited around a metre from the shared boundary with No. 29 Millham Street. No window openings are proposed in the side elevation of the proposed extension therefore there would be no loss of privacy for the neighbouring occupiers. In terms of daylight, as No.29 lies to the south east of the appeal property, the proposal would result in a minimal loss of sunlight or overshadowing to the first floor windows. However in terms of outlook, the proposed extension would breach the ‘45 degree rule ‘contained in the Council’s Residential Design Guide. The appeal scheme would result in an increased feeling of enclosure and have an overbearing effect on these first floor windows. The level difference between the two properties, with No. 29 being approximately 0.5 metre lower, would exacerbate this impact. 9. In summary, I have found that the appeal proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring residential properties. It would therefore fail to comply with Policy 8 of the LLP2. 10. Policy RES E5 of the Residential Design Guide concerns overdevelopment and states that residential extensions will only be considered acceptable where they do not compromise the ability of the property to function without impacting on neighbouring properties and infrastructure in the surrounding area. Whilst I acknowledge that an adequate rear yard area would be retained to serve the appeal property, in light of my finding above with regard to the impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, I conclude that the scheme would represent overdevelopment. Appeal Decision APP/M2372/D/18/3204519 3 Character and appearance 11. The Council in the second reason for refusal refers to the design of the proposal having a detrimental impact on the visual amenities of the property and the street scene. However in the Officers Delegated report it is stated that the proposed extension is of a good standard of design. The appeal scheme would introduce a pitched roof to the existing single storey flat roof rear extension and provide a similar pitch roof to the proposed first floor extension. It would also be constructed in matching materials to the existing house. I am therefore satisfied that in terms of design the appeal proposal would be acceptable. 12. I noted on my site visit that a number of properties in the vicinity of the appeal site have been extended to the rear with both single storey and two storey extensions. Some are not sympathetic to the design and character of the existing dwellings or to the surrounding area. In this context, and bearing in mind that the proposal lies to the rear of the property where there is a gated rear alleyway with restricted access, I consider that the scheme would not result in a significant impact on the street scene or the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore in this regard comply with Policy 11 of the LPP2 which seeks to ensure a good standard of design. Other matters 13. The appellant has brought my attention to a number of similar two storey extensions in the local area that have been granted planning consent by the Council. The examples on Millham Street date from 1997 and 1998 respectively and those on Earl Street from 1993 and 1998. Whilst they provide a precedent in the area, they all pre date the Council’s current guidance with regard to residential extensions. Notwithstanding the fact that such extensions exist in the area, and taking account of the lack of objection from the occupiers of neighbouring properties, I have assessed the appeal proposal on its individual merits having regard to the Council’s current planning policies. Conclusion 14. Whilst I have found that the appeal scheme would be acceptable in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the host property and the area as a whole, I have concluded that it would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and result in overdevelopment. 15. Therefore for the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I dismiss this appeal. Helen Hockenhull INSPECTOR