Single storey side extension and first floor side extension
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Residential Amenity
Extensions
Character & Appearance
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 6 September 2018
by D Cramond BSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 20 September 2018
Appeal Ref: APP/D1780/D/18/3206333
12 Meadowhead Road, Southampton, SO16 7AD
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 Ms Emily Burke against the decision of Southampton City
Council.
The application Ref 18/00371/FUL, dated 28 February 2018, was refused by notice
dated 4 May 2018.
The development proposed is a single storey side extension and first floor side
extension.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey
side extension and first floor side extension at 12 Meadowhead Road,
Southampton, SO16 7AD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref
18/00371 /FUL, dated 28 February 2018, subject to the following conditions:
1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years
from the date of this decision.
2. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the
development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing
building.
3. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans: 711825/263-002B, 003C & 004A.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order amending, revoking or
re-enacting that Order), no windows, doors or other openings, other than
those expressly authorised by this permission, shall be inserted above
ground floor level in the elevations of the development hereby permitted.
Application for Costs
2. An application for costs has been made by the Appellant against Southampton
City Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.
Main Issue
3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on living conditions for neighbours.
Appeal Decision APP/D1780/D/18/3206333
2
Reasons
Living conditions
4. The appeal property is a two storey detached home of substantial proportions
and pleasing appearance and is located in an area of broadly similar homes
with proportionate sized plots. Existing gaps between homes are not however
particularly generous and in this instance the appeal property has a single
storey WC on the northern boundary and a gable ended pitched roof garage
and flat roofed sun room relatively close to the southern side. To the south 10
Meadowhead Avenue has two single storey elements very close to the
boundary and between these, set back a little is the lower level of the main
side wall which contains a clear glazed window facing a very small courtyard
area. The proposal is as described above and would provide increased living
and utility space at ground floor level on the northern side and 2 new
bedrooms at first floor level on the southern side of the appeal property.
5. The Council is concerned that the first floor side extension’s height and
proximity to the common boundary would be un-neighbourly, overbearing and
result in a loss of natural light and outlook to the side facing window of the
kitchen-dining room within No 10.
6. The appeal property lies to the north of No 10 and thus sunlight is not an issue.
Outlook from the window in question is considerably restricted at the present
time with boundary fence and the form and siting of the appeal property.
There would be some diminution of this whilst looking upwards albeit the
additional vertical walling in sight would be relatively modest and the planned
roof arrangement would pitch away. Whilst I have sympathy with the Council’s
and neighbours’ concerns in my opinion the change in outlook would be modest
and there would be no significant over-bearing impact or sense of being unduly
hemmed-in compared to the existing restricted situation. The window is not
one which offers an appealing prospect at present; it is functional and would
continue to be so. In terms of daylight I am also of the opinion that the
change would be minimal because of distances, angles of built form relative to
the window, existing structures and orientation.
7. The Council cites a recent appeal decision (APP/D1780/D/17/3185246) but to
my mind this would not be directly comparable by reason of differences with
planned and existing development form, the adjoining relationship and
proximities, and orientation; in any event I have to assess this case on its own
merits.
8. Policy CS13 of the adopted Core Strategy Partial Review (March 2015) and
saved Policies SDP1, SDP7 and SDP9 of the adopted Amended Local Plan
Review (March 2015) are relevant. Taken together, and amongst other
matters, they seek to ensure that development would be suitably designed to
not result in undue loss of amenity for neighbours. This is reflected in the
advice and objectives of the Council’s Residential Design Guide SPD
(September 2006) albeit that document cannot be expected to cover every
eventuality and at times needs to be considered with a degree of flexibility
depending on site circumstances. I conclude that the proposal would not
conflict with the relevant development plan policies, the pertinent aims of the
SPD or the National Planning Policy Framework.
Appeal Decision APP/D1780/D/18/3206333
3
Conditions
9. The Council suggests the standard commencement condition along with the
requirement for materials to match the existing building. This latter condition
would be appropriate in the interests of visual amenity. I agree that there
should be a condition that works are to be carried out in accordance with listed,
approved, plans; to provide certainty. I shall also follow the Council’s
suggestion relating to restricting future windows in the interests of residential
amenity.
Overall conclusion
10. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal proposal would not
have unacceptable adverse effects on living conditions for neighbours.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed.
D Cramond
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 6 September 2018
by D Cramond BSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 20 September 2018
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/D1780/D/18/3206333
12 Meadowhead Road, Southampton, SO16 7AD
The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
The application is made by Ms Emily Burke for an award of costs against the decision of
Southampton City Council.
The appeal was made against the refusal of an application, Ref 18/00371 /FUL, which
sought planning permission for a single storey side extension and first floor side
extension.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. Planning Practice Guidance (guidance) advises that, irrespective of the outcome
of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has behaved
unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to incur
unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
3. The Appellant argues in this regard that there has been unreasonable
behaviour by the Council in determination of the proposal. In particular it is
put that greater consideration and weight should have been given to what is
seen as an extant planning permission, 1427/81. This relates to the erection of
a two storey addition which it is contended has been partially implemented and
if proceeded to completion would have impacted on neighbours to a larger
degree than the current appeal proposal. Thus given this fall back the Council
should have permitted the appeal scheme. Furthermore it is put that the
Council has placed significant weight on an appeal decision
(APP/D1780/D/17/3185246) at 40 Radway Road and this is seen to be
erroneous as the current appeal is said to relate to very different circumstances
for a range of reasons which are set out by the Appellant.
4. The Council has responded to the Appellant’s claims and explains that the
planning history of the site was properly considered as a material
consideration. It is put that the officer’s delegated report for the application
clearly details the planning history of the property and directly refers to the
previously approved application (1427/81). However it is said that 47 years
that have elapsed and that there has never been any intention to build out the
2 storey extension as originally approved in 1971 making the argument of a
possible fall-back position somewhat tenuous to the Council. Furthermore that
consent significantly pre-dates existing policies; a material change in
Costs Decision APP/D1780/D/18/3206333
2
circumstances. The Council states that the details regarding the refused
planning permission at 40 Radway Road (17/00483/FUL) were afforded weight
due to the similarities between the two schemes with two storey development
located close to a shared boundary and forward of a side facing window that
serves a habitable room. Overall it is stated that there were sound planning
reasons to refuse to grant planning permission for the development as
proposed and proper reference was made to the relevant Local Plan and Core
Strategy policies and relevant paragraphs of the Residential Design Guide SPD.
5. The general principle embodied within the guidance is that the parties involved
should normally meet their own expenses. I have carefully considered the
matter of a full or, indeed, partial, award of costs.
6. For my part I am not fully persuaded by the evidence available to me that
permission 1427/81 is actually extant and there is no real verification that even
if it was the Appellant would move to construction of this quite different
internal and external proposition. In this regard I consider that the fall back
case is over-played by the Appellant. On the matter of the Radway Road
appeal I, like the Appellant, would say that there are material differences
between the two cases. However I can quite see why the Council would draw
on it as one factor in the overall consideration and certainly why the case would
raise an air of caution.
7. I am conscious that determinations of many planning applications are, of
necessity, matters of judgement rather than empirical evidence or science. I
appreciate an appeal process can be time and fee consuming. However the
Council has given reasons for the judgement it reached and the decision notice
is sufficiently lucid, and stemming from the report which leads up to it, enables
me to determine that development plan matters had been sufficiently
considered and impacts had been analysed.
8. As it happens I disagree with the conclusion reached by the Council but I would
nevertheless defend the Council’s wording and assertions in the round as not
being unsubstantiated and its actions as not being irrational.
9. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary expense,
as described in the planning guidance, has not been demonstrated.
D Cramond
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.