Erection of a single-storey rear extension and raised patio/steps

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 December 2018 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Z1775/D/18/3213330 2 Sea View Road, Portsmouth, PO6 1EN  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 & Mrs R & Z Worboys-Bishop against the decision of Portsmouth City Council.  The application Ref 18/00805/HOU, dated 9 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 23 August 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a single-storey rear extension and raised patio/steps. This decision is issued in accordance with Section 56 (2) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as amended and supersedes that issued on 20 December 2018 Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The application was made retrospectively and at the time of my visit I saw that the works had been completed. 3. The appeal property was the subject of a previous planning permission (Ref 17/00791/HOU) dated 10 August 2017 for works that were described as ‘Construction of an additional floor and single storey rear extension’. That planning permission remains extant and is relevant to my consideration of this appeal. Notwithstanding, the appeal proposal is for a stand-alone development which I have considered on its own merits. This shows a single-storey extension to a single-storey bungalow with a specific arrangement for a raised patio and steps to the rear, which correlates to that which has been constructed. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the development on: - (i) the character and appearance of 2 Sea View Road, and (ii) the living conditions of neighbouring Appeal Decision APP/Z1775/D/18/3213330 2 occupiers, particularly at 4A Sea View Road with regard to visual impact and shadowing, and at 25 Portsdown Avenue with regard to overlooking. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal property is a detached bungalow within a wider residential area of mixed property types and sizes. The plot is unusually narrow for the area, with a shallow front garden and a long rear garden with a gradient that falls away from the rear elevation. The rear garden is flanked on both sides by the rear gardens of properties in Portsdown Avenue to the east and Uplands Road to the west. 6. The bungalow has been extended to the rear with a single-storey, ‘box-like’ addition that spans virtually the full width of the dwelling and which projects to a depth of around 5m. At 3.6m high, the addition is taller than the original rear eaves to the building, but with the new works fully integrated as part of the dwelling’s remodelled rear elevation. The plans show that the property had a patio area immediately adjacent to the original rear elevation, which then stepped down to lower levels of the garden. A not dissimilar arrangement is repeated to the rear of the extension but due to the increased depth of the building the stepped arrangement of the new patio is at higher levels than the original ground levels. 7. The 2017 consented scheme would have seen the bungalow altered to a full height two-storey dwelling, with a single-storey flat roof extension added to the rear. The Council’s report for this earlier scheme described the rear extension as being 3m high and 5m long (not 4.7m as suggested by the Council in their more recent report for the current appeal proposal). In terms of its size and form, the existing extension is not significantly different to that previously permitted. 8. The Council is concerned that the extension appears over-dominant in relation to the modest scale of the bungalow, unlike the approved scheme which would have seen it set against the backdrop of a two-storey building. I can understand why they may have reservations. However, it appears as a fairly seamless addition to the existing building, albeit of contemporary form. The slight truncation of the rear roof slope does not overtly unbalance the pitched roof form of the original dwelling. Neither does the extension add any significant mass or bulk of new building over that already permitted in the same position. 9. When viewed head-on from the rear, the extension dominates to the extent that the main part of the bungalow cannot be seen. This is partly due to the low height of the original building but also due to the falling land levels and the line of sight that can be had as a consequence. Notwithstanding, I find no harm in this regard, with the extension simply viewed in isolation and appearing appropriately residential in scale, form and function within its setting. 10. The new patio is deep, but it is an obvious means of transition from the rear of the building to the lower parts of the garden. It does not appear as a dominant Appeal Decision APP/Z1775/D/18/3213330 3 structure either in isolation or when viewed in the same context as the extension. 11. Overall, regarding the first main issue, I am satisfied that the extension and raised patio/steps are appropriately related to the character and appearance of 2 Sea View Road. I therefore find no conflict with Policy PCS23 of the Portsmouth Plan Core Strategy (2012) insofar as it relates to the aesthetics of design. Living conditions 12. No 4A Sea View Road is to the east side of the appeal site and has a shallow rear garden that terminates just beyond the original depth of the appeal property. Due to the narrow width of the appeal site No 2 is set close to the side boundary that runs between Nos 2 and 4A with its flank wall imposing itself as a fairly dominant means of enclosure to the side of the neighbours’ rear garden. The majority part of the extension projects beyond the rear boundary to No 4A and I accept that it has an obvious visual presence in reasonable proximity. However, I am not persuaded that the additional height compared with that already permitted would be noticeable, particularly when bearing in mind that the previously approved scheme also allowed for the main flank wall to No 2 to rise by a full storey height. 13. The rear garden to No 4A is south facing. The extension may result in some shadow over part of the adjoining garden during the second half of the day, but in my assessment, this would not significantly affect the neighbours’ enjoyment of their rear amenity space overall. 14. Given the relationship between these neighbouring plots, the position of the extension relative to No 4A, and the relevant planning history, I find that the extension does not give rise to any significantly new impact upon the living conditions at No 4A that is harmful. 15. During my visit I was able to look from the patio area immediately to the rear of the extension over the existing east side boundary fence and across neighbouring gardens. I had a view back towards the rear garden of No 4A and most significantly directly over the rear garden to No 25 Portsdown Avenue. This was achievable directly as a result of the new raised patio level to the rear. 16. I have considered the circumstances that were allowed by the earlier permission, but I note that the description of that development did not include for raised patio or steps. I note that a similar arrangement of bi-fold doors was permitted on the earlier scheme implying a level surface inside and outside the extension. However, from the information that has been made available to me I am unclear what precise arrangement was envisaged for the garden area beyond the permitted extension, with no clear indication to me that there was any extent of useable patio comparable in terms of height, depth and width to that which now exists. 17. Having regard to the specific circumstances of the case before me, the development has unquestionably resulted in additional levels of overlooking from the rear garden of No 2 and a subsequent loss of privacy to these neighbouring occupiers. Appeal Decision APP/Z1775/D/18/3213330 4 18. The appellants have suggested that an obscurely glazed screen could be erected along part of the site’s eastern side boundary to obstruct views into these neighbouring plots and that this could be secured by condition. However, this would require a sizeable structure to be erected and one that would loom tall over the adjacent lower garden levels, particularly at No 25. The imposition of this barrier upon the adjoining occupiers as a condition of planning permission would substantially alter the development that was applied for. It would deprive those who should have been consulted the opportunity to comment upon it and would thereby fail the test of reasonableness, being one of the six tests to be applied to the use of conditions that is given in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). 19. In these circumstances, in relation to the second main issue, I find that the development fails to protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. In this regard there is conflict with Policy PCS23. The development does not create a high standard of amenity for the existing users of the neighbouring plots and therefore also conflicts with the Framework insofar as it relates to achieving well-designed places. Conclusion 20. Notwithstanding my findings regarding the effect of the development upon the character and appearance of the existing dwelling, I find that the development is harmful to the living conditions of adjoining occupiers. I am not satisfied that the harm could reasonably be addressed through the imposition of a condition. 21. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. John D Allan INSPECTOR