2-storey rear extension, front and rear single storey extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 November 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/X4725/D/18/3210317 9 Darnley Avenue, Wakefield WF2 9QJ  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 Qubir Hussain against the decision of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council.  The application Ref 18/01272/FUL was refused by notice dated 1 August 2018.  The development proposed is described as the erection of a 2-storey rear extension, front and rear single storey extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. However, in Part E of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has changed and a different wording has been entered. The revised description refers to the proposed development as a part 2-storey, part single storey rear extension, single storey front extension, external alterations to side to include new windows and demolition of existing porch to rear. To my mind, this revised description more fully and accurately reflects the development sought. I have assessed the proposal on that basis. Main issues 3. The main issues are firstly, whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers with particular regard to outlook and light; and secondly, the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of 7 and 11 Darnley Avenue, with reference to visual impact. Reasons 4. The proposal is to enlarge the appeal property, which is a 2-storey house, with extensions to both the front and rear and together with the introduction of new windows into the flank wall of the host building. It follows the Council’s confirmation that prior approval is not required for a single storey rear addition that would be about 6m in depth from the main rear wall. For brevity, I shall refer to this as the ‘prior approval’ scheme. 5. To prevent overlooking problems towards the side windows of the adjacent property to one side of the site, two of the three new windows in the side elevation of the finished dwelling would need to include obscure glazing. In Appeal Decision APP/X4725/D/18/3210317 2 each case, the obscurely glazed window would provide the sole outlook from and natural light to a main habitable room: a ground floor lounge and a first floor bedroom. This arrangement would make each of these rooms feel gloomy and uninviting, as the external outlook would be poor and little natural light would penetrate into the room. As a result, the proposal would provide unacceptably poor living conditions for its future occupiers. 6. That there would be a second ground floor lounge and other first floor bedrooms in the completed dwelling with windows providing adequate light and views outside would not diminish the harm caused to the users of the rooms served by a single obscurely glazed window. While the prior approval scheme appears to have a similar ground floor internal layout as the proposal it does not include a first floor element and thus is not directly comparable to the appeal development. 7. The appeal scheme would add new built form at the back of the main house with extended 2-storey flank walls projecting beyond the rear build line of the properties on either side, which are 7 and 11 Darnley Avenue. As a result, the upper part of the finished building would be evident from the back garden of these neighbouring dwellings and from some of their windows. Even so, the ground floor element could come forward in any event through the implementation of the prior approval scheme. The new first floor rear component would be modest in depth and noticeably set back from the rear elevations of these adjacent properties. From the windows of both Nos 7 and 11, only part of the new extension would be seen in oblique views with the main direction of outlook largely unaffected. From the back gardens of Nos 7 and 11, the proposal would be seen against the backdrop of the substantive built form of the enlarged dwelling. 8. Taking into account all of these points, I consider that the presence of the new built form would not be so great as to overbear on or feel oppressive to the occupiers of Nos 7 or 11. Therefore, I share the appellant’s view that the proposal would not materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of the properties on either side of the site. 9. Notwithstanding my favourable finding on the second main issue, I conclude that the proposal would not provide satisfactory living conditions for future occupiers. As such, it is contrary to Policies D9 and D10 of the Council’s Local Development Framework: Development Policies Document, insofar as they aim to safeguard residential amenity. 10. The Council appears to raise no objection to the proposed ground floor front extension, which I, too, find to be acceptable. However, it is unclear from the plans whether this element of the appeal scheme is clearly severable to the rest of the appeal scheme, which is objectionable. Consequently, I have not issued a split decision that would grant planning permission solely for it. Conclusion 11. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR