Erection of a first floor rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 November 2018 by Gary Deane BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4th December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T3725/D/18/3211514 13 Mill End, Kenilworth CV8 2HP • 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 Harrison against the decision of Warwick District Council. • The application Ref W/18/1087 was refused by notice dated 27 July 2018. • The development proposed is the erection of a first floor rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. At the site visit, I viewed the site from 15 Mill End with the consent of the occupiers of this adjacent property and did so unaccompanied. Main issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 15 Mill End with regard to outlook and light. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a 3-storey mid terrace house with a part single storey, part 2-storey rear projection. The proposal is to enlarge No 13 by infilling the narrow first floor rear recess to create a full width 2-storey rear projection. 5. Within the rear elevation of the attached property, which is 15 Mill End, are several windows, the nearest of which to the site at first floor level serves a small room. The window that serves this room, which hereafter I shall refer to as ‘the window’, provides the sole external outlook from, and natural light to, this internal space. 6. The modest size of the room served by the window and its role in providing access from the main landing to a flight of stairs that lead to the living space at roof level would militate against its use as a bedroom. Even so, the room would still be potentially suitable for instance as a study or play space for a younger child. As such, it is a room that users could be expected to spend a reasonable amount of time even if the internal space could not reasonably be defined as a habitable room. That the room is currently used for ancillary storage and contains a boiler does not reduce its importance as part of the home nor diminish the reasonable expectation that the current or future neighbours’ should be able to enjoy it. Appeal Decision APP/T3725/D/18/3211514 2 7. In views from the window, I saw that the first floor walls of the rear projections to Nos 13 and 15 on either side frame the view towards the rear garden. These walls would influence the natural light reaching the room that the window serves. Given those circumstances, it seems to me that any reduction in the outlook from or natural light to the window could be significant. 8. Having carefully viewed both the rear elevations of No 13 and 15 and the appeal property from the window, I consider that the proposed rear extension, due to its scale, outward projection and close proximity, would unacceptably dominate the outlook from the window. I share the appellant’s opinion that there would be no appreciable loss of natural light given that the backs of both Nos 13 and 15 broadly face north. Nevertheless, the new built form would have a tunnel effect when seen from the window. As a result, it would curtail the neighbours’ reasonable enjoyment of the room that it serves. 9. In reaching this conclusion, I share the appellant’s view that each case should be assessed on its own merits and that local circumstances should be taken into account when applying planning policies or design criteria. For these reasons, a breach of the 45-degree code, which is an imaginary line drawn at that angle from the window, would not in itself justify withholding planning permission. The Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Guidance also acknowledges that individual site circumstances should be taken into account and that the application of the 45 degree guideline will not necessarily be the overriding consideration. Consequently, whether or not the 45-degree code is met has not been determinative in this case. Even so, having considered all of the evidence before me, I am unable to share the appellant’s opinion that the occupiers of No 15 would not be adversely affected. 10. On the main issue, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 15. Accordingly, it conflicts with Policy BE3 of the Warwick District Local Plan. This policy states that development will not be permitted that has an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby residents. 11. The occupiers of No 15 raise no objection to the proposal. However, my assessment takes into account future as well as existing occupiers of this adjacent property. 
I also acknowledge the use of matching external materials and that the extra living space within the new rear addition would enhance the living conditions of the appellant. However, these considerations do not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified. Conclusion 12. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Gary Deane INSPECTOR