Two storey rear pitched roof addition

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 September 2018 by C J Leigh BSc(Hons) MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government Decision date: 27 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/V1505/D/18/3207712 38 The Warren, Billericay, Essex, CM12 0LW  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 Nicholas Coldicott against the decision of Basildon Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/01823/FULL, dated 22 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 30 April 2018.  The development proposed is a two storey rear pitched roof addition. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Reasons 2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers, with particular reference to outlook. 3. There is an existing single storey projection to the rear of the appeal property. The proposed rear extension would see a two storey addition across the rear of the house. This would sit next to an existing two storey addition at the rear of the adjoining house of No. 40, and have no effect on the outlook from that property. However, with regards to the other adjoining house of No. 36 the proposal would extend 4m from the rear building line at both ground and first floor levels, with a 5m height to eaves level, and be 1m from the boundary. 4. I saw at my site visit that the layout at No. 36 sees a sitting out area to the rear of the house, and a small rear extension at the north eastern side of the house that has windows looking towards No. 38. This arrangement creates a currently open aspect to the rear of No. 36. The depth, height and proximity of the proposed extension would be a significant change to this outlook. I concur with the Council and the occupiers of No. 36 that the new development would be very imposing, and cause an oppressive living environment to the house and its garden. 5. I noted that there are two storey additions to the rear of certain other properties in close vicinity; most notably that at No. 40. However, where such extensions are close to a property boundary I saw they adjoin extensions at the neighbouring house, eg that at No. 40 adjoins the existing single storey addition to No. 38. This means the other two storey extensions do not have the same relationship to the neighbour that would be created in the current appeal, Appeal Decision APP/V1505/D/18/3207712 2 ie a two storey addition of the depth and height shown in the submitted drawings adjoining a ground floor area with currently open outlook. Thus, I attach little weight to the existence of other extensions in the area as they are not directly comparable. 6. I also note the Council found that the proposed extension to No. 38 would not breach the ‘45o code’ that is set out in their Development Control Guidelines (as altered, 1997). However, compliance with that one test is not determinative of the acceptability of a rear extension: saved Policy BAS BE12 of the Basildon District Local Plan 2007 states that planning permission will be refused for extensions that cause material harm by, amongst other matters, leading to over-dominance. I have determined this appeal on its own merits and for the reasons given it is my conclusion on the main issue that the proposed extension would be harmful to the outlook of the adjoining occupiers at 36 The Warren. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. C J Leigh INSPECTOR