Erection of a two storey side extension to an existing dwelling
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Residential Amenity
Character & Appearance
Extensions
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 2 January 2019
by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 16 January 2019
Appeal Ref: APP/J3015/D/18/3214196
59 Pelham Crescent, Beeston NG9 2ER
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 Ms J Yang against the decision of Broxtowe Borough Council.
The application Ref 18/00414/FUL, dated 12 June 2018, was refused by notice dated
24 September 2018.
The development proposed is the erection of a two storey side extension to an existing
dwelling.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a
two storey side extension to an existing dwelling at 59 Pelham Crescent,
Beeston NG9 2ER in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref
18/00414/FUL, dated 12 June 2018, subject to the following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years
from the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans: SC/OB/07/06/18/01 and
SC/OB/07/06/18/02 REVE/23/07/2018.
3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of
the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing
building.
Application for Costs
2. An application for costs was made by Ms J Yang against Broxtowe Borough
Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Procedural Matter
3. Reference is made in the Council’s reason for refusal to Policy 17 of the Draft
Part 2 Broxtowe Local Plan. It is understood that, although submitted, this
draft Local Plan has yet to be the subject of examination by an independent
Inspector. For this reason, only limited weight is given to this Local Plan in the
determination of this appeal albeit the content of Policy 17 is similar to those
policies of the adopted development plan documents also referred to by the
Council.
Appeal Decision APP/J3015/D/18/3214196
2
Main Issues
4. It is considered that the main issues are the effects of the proposed
development on (a) the character and appearance of the surrounding area and
(b) the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.
Reasons
Character and Appearance
5. The appeal property is a detached 2-storey dwelling fronting a turning head
around which there are other dwellings. The property is located within a
predominately residential area which comprises mainly 2-storey detached and
semi-detached dwellings. It was observed during the site visit that some of
these dwellings had been altered by rear, side and roof extensions and the
majority possessed on-plot parking within their front gardens.
6. The proposed development includes a 2-storey side extension. The Council’s
reason for refusal refers to the appeal scheme being an over intensive form of
development which would harm the amenity of the surrounding area. No
specific details about the harm which would be caused have been provided by
the Council but local residents have identified a number of matters of concern.
7. Amongst the matters raised is that the enlarged property would be used as a
House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) by students attending the near-by
Nottingham University and this would accentuate concerns related to social
cohesion. However, although they exist in Nottingham City, the Planning
Officer’s report identifies that there are no restrictions in place to prevent the
property being used as either a family dwelling or a small HMO. Accordingly,
this appeal scheme has been assessed based upon the planning circumstances
of the proposed extension rather than any future occupation.
8. By reason of the angled relationship with the extended 57 Pelham Crescent and
the separation distance from rear elevation of No. 61, the enlarged dwelling
would not appear a cramped form of development within the streetscene
around the turning head. Although the existing small detached garage is not
indicated to be retained, the appeal scheme would include an off-street parking
space reflecting the current provision and the spaces available within the front
gardens of other dwellings. The Highway Authority did not insist that more
than 1 parking space was provided even if the property was occupied as a
family dwelling. As was evidenced from the current arrangements observed
during the site visit, within the curtilage of the property there remains scope to
accommodate refuse and recycling containers
9. The size of the proposed extension would not represent a disproportionate
addition to the host property. The setting down of the roof below the existing
ridge and the setting back of the front elevation from the frontage of the host
property would result in the proposed development appearing a subservient
addition. The fenestration of the appeal scheme, in particular the front
elevation, would respect the design and size of the existing openings. For
these reasons, the design of the enlarged property would be assimilated into
the character and appearance of the surrounding residential area.
10. On this issue it is concluded that the proposed development would not cause
unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area
and, as such, it would not conflict with Policy H9 of the Broxtowe Local Plan
Appeal Decision APP/J3015/D/18/3214196
3
(LP) and Policy 10 of the Broxtowe Aligned Core Strategy (CS). Amongst
other matters these policies require extensions to dwellings to be in keeping
with both the original building and the streetscene, including its proportion and
not create a cramped effect which would be out of character.
Living Conditions
11. No openings are proposed within the flank wall of the proposed extension that
would give rise to overlooking of neighbouring properties. A first floor window
serving a bedroom and patio doors at the ground floor level are proposed to
the rear of the extension. There would be an outlook from these openings, in
particular the proposed bedroom window, towards the rear gardens and
elevations of the dwellings fronting Queens Ride East. However, the outlook
would be similar to the ones from the existing bedroom, kitchen and living
room windows. It was noted during the site visit that many of the surrounding
properties have, as is common within urban areas, similar outlooks towards the
rear gardens and elevations of neighbouring properties.
12. From the rear elevation and garden of the dwellings fronting Queens Ride East
there would be views towards the proposed extension, especially from Nos. 28
and 30. However, there would remain sufficient separation distances to avoid
the scale and siting of the enlarged property being perceived as an overbearing
or visually dominant form of development for the occupiers of these
neighbouring properties.
13. On this matter it is concluded that the proposed development would not cause
unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring
properties and, as such, it would not conflict with LP Policy H9 and CS Policy
10. Amongst other matters these policies require extensions not to cause an
unacceptable loss of amenity for neighbouring occupiers.
Other Matters
14. In addition to the matters already addressed, concerns were raised by local
residents related to noise and disturbance associated with construction works
but no objection was raised by the Environmental Health Officer to the
proposed development on these grounds. If a nuisance was caused by these
works then this would be a mater for other legislation to address.
Conditions
15. The Council has suggested several conditions in the event this appeal succeeds
which have been assessed against the tests in the National Planning Policy
Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. A condition specifying the
relevant drawings is necessary because this provides certainty about the
development being allowed. A condition requiring the external materials to
match the host property is necessary to assimilate the proposed extension as
part of the host property. For the reasons given, and taking into account all
other matters, it is concluded that this appeal should be allowed.
D J Barnes
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 2 January 2019
by D J Barnes MBA BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 16 January 2019
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/J3015/D/18/3214196
59 Pelham Crescent, Beeston NG9 2ER
The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
The application is made by Ms J Yang for a full award of costs against Broxtowe Borough
Council.
The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a two
storey side extension to an existing dwelling.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below.
Reasons
2. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may be awarded against a
party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying
for costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
3. The appellant is seeking a full award of costs because the appeal application
was for an extension to a family dwelling and the Council’s considerations
focused too much on whether or not the property might be used as a House in
Multiple Occupation (HMO). There was no need to consult with statutory
consultees about the use of the property as a HMO and to give over a
significant part of the Planning Officer’s report to HMO related matters.
Further, because of this focus on an irrelevant issue arising from the
application, the reason for refusal is vague and unspecific about the actual
harm caused. Further, the generalised harm claimed is not supported by any
evidence.
4. In response, the Council highlights the issue of the property potentially being
used as a HMO was a matter raised by local residents and this needed to be
addressed in the Planning Officer’s report. It was also appropriate to seek the
views from statutory consultees on this matter. However, the report was clear
about the intentions of the appellant’s use of the property and the current
permitted development rights available for a change of use of the property.
The Members were entitled to reach a different conclusion to Officers and, in
doing so, they focused upon the impact on the amenity of the occupiers of
neighbouring properties, in particular concerns around parking. The decision
followed a site visit by Members, presentations by the appellant and a local
resident at the Committee meeting and consideration of relevant policies.
5. Concerns related to a potential HMO use were raised by local residents and the
Planning Officer’s report to Members did need to address the principle of this
Costs Decision APP/J3015/D/18/3214196
2
use occurring. Although the reported responses from consultees might not
have needed to have included licencing matters, the Officer’s report is clear
that there are currently no restrictions regarding the potential for the property
to be used as a small HMO. In several places the Officer’s report does record
the appellant’s intention that the property be occupied as a family home and
goes on to assess the merits of the proposed extension in terms of its design,
the living conditions for existing and future occupiers and parking provision.
Further, there is an opinion that the proposed extension would be acceptable
whether the property was occupied as a family home or a HMO.
6. Whether, notwithstanding the Officer’s assessment, Members were unduly
influenced by the commentary regarding the potential HMO use of the property
is unclear from evidence submitted by the parties. The reason for refusal does
not refer to the potential use of the property as a HMO albeit this is a concern
expressed in the Minutes of the meeting. Instead, the reason refers to an over
intensive form of development which is considered harmful to the amenity of
the surrounding neighbours.
7. Why the appeal scheme would be an over intensive form of development and
what harm would be caused to the amenity of the surrounding occupiers is not
clearly identified in the reason for refusal. Although parking, refuse and the
diversity of the area are mentioned in the Minutes, these matters are not
specifically identified in the reason for refusal as causing actual harm.
8. It is correct to record that the Council’s Cost Rebuttal refers to parking being a
concern but this does not appear in the reason for refusal. The Minutes do not
assist in understanding the parking concern of Members, particularly in the
absence of an explicit requirement from the Highway Authority that more than
1 off-street parking space must be provided, even for a family dwelling.
9. Accordingly, this is a case where the reason for refusal is somewhat vague and
generalised and is not substantiated by cogent or objective evidence
concerning the precise harm which would be caused by the proposed extension
to the amenity of the surrounding neighbours. I therefore find that
unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as
described in the Planning Practice Guidance, has been demonstrated and that a
full award of costs is justified.
Costs Order
10. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act
1972 and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended,
and all other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Broxtowe Borough Council shall pay to Ms J Yang, the costs of the appeal
proceedings described in the heading of this decision; such costs to be
assessed in the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed.
11. The applicant is now invited to submit to Broxtowe Borough Council, to whom a
copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to
reaching agreement as to the amount.
D J Barnes
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.