Erection of a two-storey side extension and single storey extensions to the front and rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 October 2018 by J D Westbrook BSc(hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11th October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/W3710/D/18/3209289 18 Hayle Close, Nuneaton, CV11 6FE  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 John Murray against the decision of Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council.  The application Ref 035556, dated 5 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 23 May 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a two-storey side extension and single storey extensions to the front and rear. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed extensions on:  The character and appearance of Hayle Close, and  The living conditions of the occupiers of No 6 Penryn Close by way of light and outlook. Reasons 3. No 18 is a detached house situated within Hayle Close, which is a cul-de-sac leading off Camborne Drive. The property comprises a large plot, located at a point where Hayle Close turns a 90 degree bend. It is therefore in a relatively prominent position when approaching from the east. A footpath runs alongside the northern boundary of the property and links Hayle Close with Penryn Close to the rear. The rear boundary of No 6 Penryn Close is shared with the side boundary of No 18. No 18 is a two-storey house with a single-storey side extension that includes a kitchen area and a garage. There is also a conservatory to the rear of the house, close to the boundary with No 17. 4. The proposed development would involve the demolition of the existing conservatory and its replacement with a slightly longer rear extension. It would also involve the demolition of the existing single-storey side extension and its replacement with a two storey side extension and a single-storey front/side projection containing a double garage and utility room. The front/side extension would terminate around 1 metre from the common boundary with No 6 Penryn Close. Appeal Decision APP/W3710/D/18/3209289 2 5. The Council indicates that there are no significant concerns on the issues of appearance or living conditions with regard to the replacement of the existing conservatory with a slightly longer rear extension, particularly as the extension would have a flat roof and a height of only around 2.7 metres. I note that the extension would not be visible in the street scene and that, by virtue of the topography of the area, No 18 is also set a little lower than No 17. On this basis, I concur with the views of the Council regarding this element of the proposal, and the main issues in this case therefore relate to the effects of the two-storey and single-storey front/side extensions. 6. The Council contends that the front/side two-storey and single-storey extensions would not respect the form and size of the property, and would dominate the existing house, creating an over-prominent and incongruous feature in the street scene to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area. In addition, they would create a loss of light and significant sense of enclosure to the lounge window and private amenity space of number 6 Penryn Close, to the detriment of the residential amenity of its occupiers. Character and appearance 7. By virtue of its position on a bend in the road, the views of the front elevation of No 18 are from a very oblique angle. As such, the two-storey side extension would not be readily viewed as part of the street scene. However, from the submitted drawings it would appear that the extension would continue the existing roof line of the main house and would be over 5 metres wide. On this basis it would not appear subservient to the main house. Moreover, the existing first floor windows in the main part of the house have small gabled elements above, and the first-floor windows in the proposed extension would fail to reflect this feature, and would also fail to reflect the scale and design of the existing windows. For these reasons I find that the proposed two-storey side extension would appear over-prominent in the context of the host property, and would also be unsympathetic to key design features of the front elevation of the main house. 8. With regard to the single-storey front/side extension, it would project approximately 8 metres forward of the front elevation of the house and would have a pitched roof. With regard to its design and materials, it would respect those of the main house. In the street scene, the extension would be clearly visible when approaching the site from the east. However, it would be relatively low, and the view down this part of the road is already closed by the 2 metre high boundary fence at No 18 and by houses along parts of Penryn Close to the rear. For this reason, I do not consider that the single-storey extension would, in itself, be an over-prominent or incongruous feature in the street scene along this part of Hayle Close. 9. In conclusion on this issue, I find that the proposed single-storey extension would not be harmful to the character or appearance of Hayle Close. However, the two-storey side extension would appear as an over-dominant extension to the main house and that it would fail to respect certain key design features of the existing house. It would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and, therefore, detrimental to the wider area. It would, on this basis, also conflict with Policy ENV14 of the Council’s Local Plan (LP) which requires development to be in keeping with the scale and character of the locality. Appeal Decision APP/W3710/D/18/3209289 3 Living conditions 10. The Council’s Residential Design Guide (RDG) indicates that in the interests of protecting aspect and light, the blank wall of an extension directly facing the window of a habitable room of the same height shall be a minimum 12 metres apart. It goes on to add that the minimum distance increases to 14 metres where the extension is a storey higher, and 16 metres where the difference is two storeys. 11. In this case, the blank wall of the proposed two-storey extension would directly face the rear elevation of No 6 Penryn Close. No 6 has a first-floor bedroom window in this elevation and also a large set of glazed patio doors at ground- floor level. The patio doors are the primary source of light for the rear living room at No 6. The proposed extension at No 18 would appear to be a little over 12 metres distant from the rear elevation of No 6. At ground floor level, the proposed extension would therefore meet the requirements of the RDG. However, at first floor level it would not meet those requirements. Moreover, because of the topography of the area, the ground floor level of No 6 lies significantly below that of No 18, such that the visual impact of the proposed two-storey extension would be accentuated. 12. I have no details of sunlight or daylight factors relating to the proposed front/side extensions at No 18, but I note they would lie to the east and north- east of No 6. For this reason I do not consider it likely that they would have significant adverse effects on the light received by the windows/patio doors in the rear elevation of No 6. However, the proximity of the two-storey element of the extensions to the rear elevation of No 6, coupled with the significant fall in ground level, would result in an oppressive outlook from the windows and rear garden of No 6, to the detriment of the residential amenities of its occupiers. 13. On this issue, therefore, I find that the proposed extensions would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 6 by way of outlook, and that the proposal would conflict with guidance in the Council’s RDG relating to aspect. It would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which, in Paragraph 130, indicates that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area, taking into account any local design standards or style guides in supplementary planning documents. J D Westbrook INSPECTOR