Two storey pitched roof extension to the side

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 October 2018 by E Symmons BSc (Hons) MSc MArborA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 23 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z4310/D/18/3205379 3 Charmouth Close, Croxteth Park, Liverpool L12 0PG  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 Robert Conroy against the decision of Liverpool City Council.  The application ref 18H/0728, dated 5 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 7 June 2018.  The development proposed is a two storey pitched roof extension to the side. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues  The effect of the proposal on living conditions of occupiers of 2 Charmouth Close with particular regard to outlook and light.  The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons Living conditions 2. No’s 2 and 3 Charmouth Close are offset from each other with No 2 sitting several metres behind No 3. Within the estate there is currently a gap between each pair of houses. In the case of No’s 2 and 3 Charmouth Close, the gap has been decreased in width by construction of a two-storey extension by No 2, which extends almost to the property boundary. 3. Due to the current property layouts the proposed extension would have two consequences. Firstly, it would sit in the remaining gap between the properties placing the proposed extension directly adjacent to the rear garden of No 2. Secondly, as No 3 sits in front of No 2, the proposed extension would protrude beyond the rear property line of No 2 by around 3m. As a consequence of the height and mass of the extension in close proximity to the boundary it would result in an unpleasant overbearing and overshadowing effect upon the rear facing habitable rooms and garden of No 2. This would materially harm both the outlook from the rear windows of the property, and the occupiers’ enjoyment of the whole private rear garden. 4. For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 2 and would be contrary to Policies H8 of the Liverpool Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 2002, emerging Policy 8 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033 (LLP), Pre-submission Draft 2018 and Appeal Decision APP/Z4310/D/18/3205379 2 Supplementary Guidance (SG) Note 1 which seek to ensure that house extensions preserve the amenity of neighbours and do not overshadow or have an overbearing effect. Character and appearance 5. This relatively modern estate is characterised by pairs of two-storey semi- detached properties separated by gaps. The host property sits in a cul de sac and has the same typical design as its neighbours. The SG advises applicants that the width of proposed extensions should be no more than twice the width of the host property. This extension would be 2.7m wide on a host property 4.4m wide and as such, would be contrary to the guidance. While the adjacent property No 2 has a two storey side extension similar to that proposed in this appeal, the proposed extension would close the gap between the properties leading to both pairs of semi-detached properties appearing unbalanced forming an incongruous terraced feature in an otherwise uniform street scene. 6. During my site visit I saw some examples of single storey side extension which bridge the gap between properties; however a two-storey proposal would have a much greater unbalancing effect. 7. For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and be contrary to Policy H8 of the UDP and the SG with regard to scale and design. Other matters 8. There has been some dialogue between the parties regarding potential resolution of issues, however the correspondence has not been made available to me and the details currently provided do not alter my assessment. Conclusion 9. For the reasons above I dismiss the appeal. E Symmons INSPECTOR