Rear loft floor extension

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 October 2018 by David Fitzsimon MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26th October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/C4235/D/18/3208345 67 Earle Road, Bramhall, Stockport SK7 3HB  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 Mrs Iram Mirza against the decision of Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref DC/069201, dated 2 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 18 June 2018.  The development undertaken is a ‘rear loft floor extension’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The development was present at the time of my visit. This has no bearing on my decision which is based on the planning merits of the case. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this case are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its setting, along with its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings, Nos. 65 and 69 Earle Road, with particular regards to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal relates to a traditional semi-detached property. A large box dormer has been added to the main roof of the dwelling and also to a previously permitted extension which projects from the rear. The box like addition is significantly larger than the roof alterations confirmed under a recent Certificate of Lawful Development. It has radically changed the traditional rear roof profile of the dwelling to an oversized box. The affect is visually incongruous and completely imbalances this pair of semi-detached dwellings, which is detrimental to their setting. 5. As a result, I find the development conflicts with policy SIE-1 of the adopted Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council Core Strategy (CS), saved policy CDH Appeal Decision APP/C4235/D/18/3208345 2 1.8 of the Stockport Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document titled ‘Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings’ (SPD) which all promote high standards of design that responds well to its context. Living conditions 6. No. 69 Earle Road sits off the boundary shared with the appeal dwelling by the width of its driveway and it has a two storey extension projecting from its closest rear section. Whilst this extension provides something of a buffer, I consider that the overall scale and height of the box roof addition appears incongruous and overbearing when viewed from the rear garden of this neighbouring property. 7. No. 65 Earle Road is attached to the appeal dwelling. The roof addition sits above the main body of the appeal dwelling and the two storey addition. Whilst this extension is set off the boundary with No. 65, it projects a considerable distance from the main rear elevation of these two attached dwellings. The addition of what is effectively a third storey above this extension in a box form exacerbates the feeling of enclosure, particularly from the nearest first floor rear bedroom at the back of No. 65. From here, the development has an overbearing and oppressive effect. Given the overall height and bulk of the roof addition, I also consider that it appears overbearing and overly dominant when viewed from the rear garden of No. 65 Earle Road. 8. I therefore find that the roof extension has an unduly overbearing effect for the occupiers of Nos. 65 and 69 Earle Road. In this respect too, it conflicts with policy SIE-1 of the CS, policy CDH 1.8 of the UDP and the SPD, which also seek to safeguard appropriate levels of residential amenity. Other matters 9. The appellant asserts she was advised that planning permission was not required for the development undertaken, that it would be costly to remove and that the Council should have taken formal action before the development was completed. I do not know the circumstances behind how the roof addition came to be built, but these factors, along with the cost of removing the structure, are not for me to consider. 10. Additional concerns have been raised about the positioning of a boiler flue, about property damage and also the construction of outbuildings within the rear garden of the appeal property. However, these matters are beyond the scope of the appeal before me. Overall Conclusions 11. I conclude that the development unacceptably harms the character and appearance of the host dwelling and its setting, and it has an unduly overbearing effect for the occupiers of Nos. 65 and 69 Earle Road, contrary to the development plan policies and design guidance outlined above. The arguments advanced by the appellant do not outweigh the harm identified therefore the appeal does not succeed. David Fitzsimon INSPECTOR