Extensions to side and rear and relocation of outbuilding to rear including alterations to existing levels

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 August 2018 by Graham M Garnham BA BPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W4705/D/18/3204720 18 Duchy Avenue, Bradford, BD9 5NE  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 Bhaiyat Ilyas against the decision of City of Bradford Council.  The application Ref 18/00328/HOU, dated 22 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 20 March 2018.  The development proposed is extensions to side and rear and relocation of outbuilding to rear including alterations to existing levels. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for extensions to side and rear and relocation of outbuilding to rear including alterations to existing levels at 18 Duchy Avenue, Bradford, BD9 5NE in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 18/00328/HOU, dated 22 January 2018, subject to the following condition: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the following approved plans: drawings numbered SR-1877-1 and sr-1877-2, and 1:500 scale site plan. Procedural Matter 2. The planning application form says that the works were started without planning permission in May 2014, but not yet completed. The retrospective nature of the proposal does not affect my consideration of its planning merits. Main Issue 3. I consider that this is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of no.20 Duchy Avenue, with regard to outlook, overbearing effect, overshadowing and loss of light. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached house, attached to no.20. Both properties also have sizeable roof dormers, front and back. The Council does not object to the raising of ground levels nearer the house, to form a patio, or the relocation of an outbuilding on lower ground beyond it. Back gardens locally are long, and neither of these aspects of the proposal affect neighbours’ living conditions. The Council does not object to them, and I have no reason to take a different view. Appeal Decision APP/W4705/D/18/3204720 2 5. The Council’s objection is to a two storey rear extension. Apart from a first floor addition on the side away from no.20, the plans show that this is substantially the same as a proposal that gained planning permission in May 2012. This was pursuant to an application Ref 12/01054/HOU, for the construction of two storey rear extension and single storey side extension to no.18, enlarged dormers and detached garden buildings, at 18-20 Duchy Avenue. The plans show near identical rear extensions to both houses. Among others, the following planning condition was imposed by the Council: “Neither of the two-storey rear extensions hereby approved shall be brought into use or otherwise occupied until both extensions are completed and capable of inhabitation”. The reason given was: in the interests of the residential amenity of the occupants (and to comply with development plan policy and a supplementary planning document [SPD]). In the event, the neighbour appears to made a start on works at no.20, and erected a ground floor extension that projects outwards 3 metres. A two storey extension has not been erected. 6. The Council finds that the two storey extension would be contrary to guidance in its Householder SPD (2012), in which Design Principle 3 is particularly relevant. This says that “Extensions and outbuildings should not over dominate, seriously damage outlook or unacceptably reduce natural daylight reaching any neighbours’ property”. Whereas a 3 metre extension at ground level is normally acceptable, the criterion for a two storey extension is not to project beyond a 45 degree line from the edge of the neighbour’s nearest habitable room window. The drawings show the extension at no.18 projecting 3 metres beyond the neighbour’s ground floor extension, and 6 metres from the main rear wall of their house. 7. There is a double-width, glazed patio door in the ground floor extension at no.20. I consider that a 3 metre projection beyond this at the appeal site would have a limited effect on outlook from within the room, and that the upper part of the extension would be above the normal line of sight into the back garden. Moreover, although the height of the extension would be more apparent on the adjoining patio, I consider that the limited projection would not be over dominant or have an unduly oppressive effect on outlook. Users of the patio would still enjoy the long rear garden, and late afternoon summer sun from the opposite direction. Thus I find that the proposal would not seriously damage outlook at ground floor level. 8. The rear of the pair faces just east of north, and the appeal property is on the east side of the pair. This means that, even without the extension at no.18, the rear side of no.20 would be in shadow for most of the day, except early morning and late evening in summer. There would thus be little added overshadowing, while levels of daylight within the nearest rooms would not be unacceptably reduced, given the size of the openings and the open aspect of the property. 9. This leaves the first floor window at no.20, set about a metre away from the side of the extension. The 45 degree line is clearly intercepted, and the outer part of the extension would impinge on outlook from within the room. The neighbour has not objected. I am also conscious that a more permissive regime towards householder extensions has been introduced by Statutory Instrument since the Council’s SPD was adopted. Bearing these matters in mind, I consider that the effect on the first floor window would not seriously Appeal Decision APP/W4705/D/18/3204720 3 damage outlook from there to the extent that planning permission should be withheld for this reason. 10. Overall and on balance, I conclude that the proposal would not cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of no.20 Duchy Avenue, with regard to outlook, overbearing effect, overshadowing and loss of light. There would be no material conflict with Policy DS5 of the City of Bradford Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2017), which requires development proposals not to harm the amenity of existing residents. The purposes of the SPD would be met, in that unacceptable impacts on the living conditions of neighbours would be avoided. 11. The development for which planning permission is sought appears substantially to have been completed. Consequently planning conditions to limit the time of implementation and to control the materials to be used are not needed. Nonetheless, in the interests of certainty and in the event of future changes, I need to to impose a condition specifying the approved drawings. 12. On this basis there is no reason to withhold planning permission, and I allow the appeal. G Garnham INSPECTOR