External alterations to include gable build up; construction of dormer window to part of rear upper roofslope and single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 October 2018 by J Ayres BA Hons, Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29th October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z1775/D/18/3207287 75 Francis Avenue, Southsea PO4 0HP  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 Darrell Mandiwall against the decision of Portsmouth City Council.  The application Ref 18/00376/HOU, dated 5 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 14 May 2018.  The development proposed is external alterations to include gable build up; construction of dormer window to part of rear upper roofslope and single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for external alterations to include gable build up; construction of dormer window to part of rear upper roofslope and single storey rear extension at 75 Francis Avenue, Southsea PO4 0HP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/00376/HOU, dated 5 May 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Plan; Existing Plans - 9234.16.1; Proposed Plans - 9234.16.2. 3) The materials used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Preliminary matter 2. I have used the description as set out in the council’s decision notice as this more accurately reflects the proposal. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to outlook. Appeal Decision APP/Z1775/D/18/3207287 2 Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal property is located in a residential area which is not part of the conservation area. The property is one of a short terrace of properties displaying a similar style. A number of properties in the area have been extended, roof lines display a variety of styles and the built form appears to have evolved over a period of time resulting in a slightly more varied character which mixes traditional and modern design. 5. The proposal would result in a number of alterations to the rear elevation of the appeal property. The hip to gable extension would change the roof form and this would be visible from Francis Avenue. However gable ends are a common feature of the street scene, they contribute to the variation in the built form and this element would not necessarily be at odds with the mixed character of the area. Whilst there is an element of symmetry at this section of the street, it forms part of a break in a much more dominant character, and in the wider street scene a number of the properties have been altered. As such, although it would change the roof line when viewed from Francis Avenue, I do not consider that this change would be harmful to the overall character of the area. 6. Similarly, dormer elements are found on a number of properties in the area. Due to the proposal being on the rear of the property, very limited views of the dormer would actually be visible from the public domain. Similarly views would be obstructed along Delamare Road due to the rear wing of No 77. Views would be possible if one walked up the rear alleyway that passes along the back of the property, and it would be visible from some of the rear gardens of properties in the area. However a number of them have mature boundary treatments, and taking into account the strong residential and densely populated character of the area, in addition to the separation distances, I do not consider that these views would create an overly dominant rear elevation. 7. The built form of the appeal property varies in height and scale, providing a number of elevations and variations in height. The proposal would alter the roof line further with the addition of the hip to gable and the first floor dormer. However, provided the hip to gable and dormer were finished in suitable materials, which could be secured by way of condition, I do not consider that these alterations would result in harm to the host property or the character and appearance of the wider area. 8. The property has an existing rear conservatory. The proposed ground floor extension would demolish the conservatory and then extend the rear of the property so that it would be in line with the existing building line of the kitchen. The extension would be slightly set in from the boundary, with a flat roof, and a proposed window on the rear elevation. No windows are proposed on the side elevation. The proposal would sit comfortably as part of the host building. 9. Overall, I find that the individual elements of the proposal, when considered as a whole, would be of an appropriate scale and appearance. Although some views may be possible I do not consider that these would be harmful. Accordingly it would comply with Policy PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan 2012 which seeks to ensure high quality design. Appeal Decision APP/Z1775/D/18/3207287 3 Living conditions 10. The separation distances between the proposed roof alterations and the neighbouring properties would ensure that these elements of the proposal would not result in harm in respect of overlooking or loss of privacy. 11. The single storey element of the proposal would replace the existing conservatory and then extend to meet the rear building line of the kitchen. The extension would have a flat roof and a small gap between the extension and the boundary would be provided. The windows on the ground floor of the side elevation of No 77 are secondary windows which do not serve principal rooms, a window and door face out towards the existing boundary wall whilst a window is located on the rear of the property. 12. The existing conservatory has a sloped roof which would be replaced with a flat roof the length of the extension. The increase in height of the proposed extension of about one metre above this boundary, set back by approximately 0.20 metres, would not have a significant enclosing effect on next door’s outlook from these side windows. The removal of the lean-to style roof as currently existing, and its replacement with a flat roof, albeit at a height of three metres, would not have a significant impact on the level of light serving the windows of No 77. 13. Under permitted development rights if the extension were assessed individually it would be possible to extend from the rear of the property to a depth of six metres, provided the height would be less than four metres, subject to the scheme complying with the General Permitted Development Order in all other respects. I note that the occupiers of No 77 did not object to the proposal before me, which would extend some 6.6 metres in its entirety at a height of three metres. 14. The council has referred to an appeal at 57 Cuthbert Road (APP/Z1775/D/18/3196848) in which the Inspector found harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupier. Whilst I am mindful of that Inspector’s findings there are material differences between that appeal and the scheme before me. In particular, in that case the appeal property had an existing two storey extension, and the Inspector considered the proposal would create a canyon effect. I have determined this appeal on the basis of its own merits. 15. Whilst the proposal would alter the relationship of the built form, I do not consider that it would be to the extent that it would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with respect to outlook and light, nor would it result in a harmful sense of enclosure. Accordingly it would comply with Policy PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan 2012 with regards to securing amenity for neighbouring occupiers. Conclusion and conditions 16. The appeal should succeed and planning permission granted subject to a condition specifying the plans that is necessary to provide certainty and a condition relating to materials in order to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. J Ayres INSPECTOR