Single storey side extension, a single storey and first floor rear extension, a replacement front porch and internal works

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 November 2018 by Les Greenwood MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 15th November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/F2415/D/18/3209741 32 Uppingham Road, Houghton on the Hill LE7 9HH  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 Yogesh Patel against the decision of Harborough District Council.  The application Ref 18/00885/FUL was refused by notice dated 10 July 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey side extension, a single storey and first floor rear extension, a replacement front porch and internal works. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on living conditions at the next door house, 34 Uppingham Road, in terms of impacts on outlook and light. Reasons 3. 32 Uppingham Road is a detached house which stretches nearly the full width of its wide plot. The proposal would convert and extend a single storey double garage to the side and rear, including provision of some limited first floor storage space under a pitched/flat roof. The side extension would wrap around to the rear and a new rear first floor extension would be added, all with flat roofs. The front porch would be altered and a tall boundary fence would be built on the boundary with No 34. 4. The new side/rear extension would sit almost up to the boundary with No 34, which has a side facing kitchen window only a metre or 2 away. This is the only window serving the kitchen and I consider it to be important to the living conditions of occupiers of No 34. At present it looks out on the 2 storey height side wall of No 32, but this is set away from the window, allowing some more open, angled views. 5. The proposed extension, including its roof, would be nearly as high as the existing 2 storey wall at No 32. It would be much closer to No 34 and extend much further to the rear, sharply cutting off views from the kitchen window. Although No 34 is set at a somewhat higher level than No 32, the height, bulk and nearness of the proposed side/rear extension and fence would be unduly overbearing and intrusive on the outlook from that window. The proposed first Appeal Decision APP/F2415/D/18/3209741 2 floor rear extension would be set much further away from No 34 and would be almost entirely screened from the kitchen window by the side extension, so would not have any significant impact in this configuration. 6. The proposed side extension and fence would also limit views of the sky from No 34’s kitchen window, significantly reducing the already limited amount of general daylight (light from the sky) it receives. The proposal would also overshadow the kitchen window for significant periods of the afternoon for much of the year, materially reducing its direct sunlight. Although it would be possible to impose a condition limiting the height of the fence, as suggested by the appellant, this would not be sufficient to remedy the problems identified above. 7. The Council’s 2003 Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 5 sets out some advice in regard to neighbours’ outlook and light, but says nothing clear and definitive about the circumstances of this particular case. I have therefore assessed the appeal on its own merits. 8. I conclude that the proposed side and rear extensions and fencing would unacceptably harm living conditions at 34 Uppingham Road, in terms of the impacts on outlook from and natural light to a kitchen window. The proposal therefore conflicts with the aims of Harborough District Core Strategy 2006-2028 Policy CS11 and Harborough District Local Plan 2007 Policy HS/8, to safeguard the amenities of existing and future neighbouring occupiers. These policies align with the National Planning Policy Framework’s emphasis on creating places with a high standard of amenity for future users. 9. I have also been provided with a copy of the Post Examination Version of the Houghton on the Hill Neighbourhood Plan and Village Design Statement (NP), but my attention has not been drawn to any aspect which is directly relevant to the main issue in this appeal. 10. The Council is satisfied in regard to the proposal’s impact on local character and appearance and raises no other objections. I note that the NP generally discourages the use of flat roofs on extensions, but find no objection in this case as the flat roof elements would be out of public view. 11. I recognise the appellant’s reasonable wish to improve his family home and understand that this seems a logical way to extend. I note that the build to plot ratio would not be high due to the property’s long back garden. I appreciate that the flat roofs are proposed at least in part to reduce the impact on neighbours. I find nothing, however, that outweighs or overrides my concerns in respect of the main issue. 12. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed. Les Greenwood INSPECTOR