2 storey extension to the side and single storey to the rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 August 2018 by Philip Major BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3rd September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/X4725/D/18/3208283 36 Kenton Drive, Durkar, Wakefield WF4 3PN  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 A Martin against the decision of City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council.  The application Ref: 18/00517/FUL, dated 3 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 15 May 2018.  The development proposed is a 2 storey extension to the side and single storey to the rear. Preliminary Matter 1. I note that the single storey extension to the rear which forms part of this proposal has been permitted by the split decision which was issued. It is therefore the 2 storey extension which gives concern to the Council. I agree that the single storey extension is acceptable and do not propose to deal further with that aspect of the proposal. Decision 2. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 3. The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed 2 storey extension on the living conditions of the adjoining occupants. Reasons 4. The Council’s recently adopted Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on residential design for householders indicates that extensions should be of subordinate design when seen with the original house. The 2 storey extension would be lower than the existing house, but would not be set back from the front wall. In this case I do not consider that this is problematic since the extension flows from the existing front porch/wc projection. When seen from the front the long slope of the roof with its dormer window would be perceived as a subordinate feature to the main part of the house. 5. This proposed extension would be located close to the common boundary with properties situated on Maybury Avenue. On this elevation the 2 storey extension would introduce a long and tall face of blank brickwork. The distance to the rear of the neighbouring property would be about 9m between the Appeal Decision APP/X4725/D/18/3208283 2 extension and the house. At present there is a tall hedge and a fence on the boundary. The fence is about 1.8m in height and the hedge immediately adjacent to the proposed 2 storey extension is within the garden of the neighbour’s house. Hence the neighbour has control over the height at which the hedge is retained. But the hedge might be reduced or removed in the future (or be affected by any building works) and the distance between the blank wall and the neighbour’s house is below the 12m recommended in the SPD. In such circumstances the extensive area of blank gable militates against the proposal. It would introduce a significant and obtrusive feature which would be an overbearing and oppressive presence when experienced at the neighbouring property. The extension would dominate the rear of the property and would cause significant harm to the living conditions of occupants there, particularly when using the garden. 6. Policies D9 and D10 of the Wakefield Local Development Framework Development Policies document, when taken together, require development to be of good design such that there is no significant harm to the amenity of adjoining residents. These policies reflect the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. As I have set out above this proposal would cause significant harm, and would therefore be in conflict with these development plan policies. 7. I have noted the content of the appeal decision brought to my attention. However that decision deals with gable to gable distances and relates to the impact on non-habitable rooms. It can be distinguished from the case before me which deals with gable to main elevation distances and the allied impact on the enjoyment of a garden. That decision is therefore of little assistance. I also understand the desire of the Appellant to improve and extend the living accommodation at the property but this does not justify the harm I have identified. 8. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Philip Major INSPECTOR