Room in roof space with dormer to rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 October 2018 by Thomas Hatfield BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 26th October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B4215/D/18/3210779 2 Laurel Avenue, Moss Side, Manchester, M14 7JW  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 Richard Garner against the decision of Manchester City Council.  The application Ref 120437/FH/2018, dated 27 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 5 September 2018.  The development proposed is described as “room in roof space with dormer to rear. Single storey extension to side elevation (rear)”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of current and future occupiers with regard to access to private outdoor amenity space. Reasons 3. The appeal property is an end terrace house on the eastern side of Laurel Avenue. It has an existing single storey rear extension that occupies the majority of the original yard area. The remaining outdoor space is around 1.5 metres in width and is mostly laid out with decking and pot plants. 4. The proposed ground floor extension would bring a significant part of the remaining outdoor space into the property. This would leave only a very small yard area at the rear. In this regard, there would be very limited space in which to dry clothes, relax, accommodate a table and chairs, and store bicycles. Moreover, the extended dwelling would be a 3-bedroom family house and there is a reasonable prospect that at some point it would be occupied by a family with children. The proposed lack of private garden space for family use is therefore a significant shortcoming in this case. Whilst the existing outdoor area is narrow in shape, it provides some useable outdoor space to the property that would be lost under this proposal. 5. My attention has been drawn to the proximity of Alexandra Park, and to the gated communal alleyway area at the rear. However, these facilities are not a substitute for private and secure garden space for family use. The front yard is also visible from along the street and does not provide a private outdoor space. Appeal Decision APP/B4215/D/18/3210779 2 6. Most properties along the terrace make use of the rear alleyway to store bins, and so the yard area is not required for that purpose. However, that does not overcome my other concerns regarding the development, as set out above. 7. For the above reasons, I conclude that the development would significantly harm the living conditions of current and future occupiers with regard to access to private outdoor amenity space. It would therefore be contrary to Policies SP 1 and DM 1 of the Manchester Core Strategy (2012), and Policy DC1 of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester (1995). These policies seek to ensure, amongst other things, that new development allows for adequate outdoor amenity space and creates well designed places. It would also be at odds with the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Other Matters 8. Whilst the development would result in the replacement of the existing boundary wall which is in poor condition, that could be repaired or replaced without extending the property. 9. The extension would have limited visibility from the street and would be seen mainly from the alleyway and from the rear of neighbouring properties. Whilst it would create a higher wall facing the alleyway than at present, I do not consider that it would be of poor design. However, that does not alter my other concerns regarding the development, as set out above. Conclusion 10. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Thomas Hatfield INSPECTOR