First floor bedroom extension above an existing side garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 January 2019 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/V4305/D/18/3215237 8 Windy Arbor Brow, Whiston, Knowsley, L35 1RA  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 Paul Barton against the decision of Knowsley Council.  The application Ref 18/00366/FUL, dated 3 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 14 August 2018.  The development proposed is a first floor bedroom extension above an existing side garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are the effects of the proposed development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of Hillside, with regards to outlook; and its effects on highway safety. Reasons Living conditions 3. The appeal property is a modern detached two storey dwelling with an attached garage area to the side, set back from the front elevation. It is located along a short residential street comprising other detached dwellings. 4. The appeal property is set back from Windy Arbor Brow behind a front garden and driveway. As such, it sits towards the rear of Hillside, a neighbouring two storey cottage located close to the kerb of Windy Arbor Brow. The topography of the area is such that the appeal property also sits considerably higher than Hillside. During my site visit, I also observed the front of the appeal property’s garage area to be in very close proximity to the rear elevation of Hillside. 5. It is proposed to extend above the garage area, which currently comprises a store and utility, to provide living accommodation at first floor level. The additional storey proposed would result in a considerable increase in the height of the appeal property. I find that this, together with the proposal’s close proximity to Hillside, would inevitably impact on the outlook from the rear elevation of this neighbouring property, as well as on the outlook from part of its rear garden. Appeal Decision APP/V4305/D/18/3215237 2 6. Whilst, to some degree, the presence of trees along the boundary between the appeal property and Hillside serves to provide for a sense of separation and privacy between the two properties, I find that the proposed development would, due to its height and proximity, still “loom” above the rear of Hillside to an overbearing degree. The harm arising from this would be exacerbated by the difference in levels between the two dwellings, such that the proposal would appear as an unduly dominant built feature when viewed from Hillside. 7. Whilst I note that the hipped roof element of the proposed extension would result in a less overbearing development than the gable roof originally proposed, the proposal would still result in the harm identified above. 8. Taking the above into account, I consider that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of Hillside, with regards to outlook. This would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Famework); to the Local Plan1 policy CS19; and to UDP2 policies H5 and H8, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity. Highway Safety 9. One of the Council’s reasons for refusal was that the conversion of the garage would result in the loss of a car parking space. Whilst I note that garages are used for many different things, I also observed during my site visit that the driveway to the front of the appeal property can provide for two car parking spaces and that there is plentiful further room for the driveway to be extended should the occupiers of the appeal property require further space for car parking. 10.Further to the above, during my site visit I also observed there to be opportunities for safe on-street parking along Windy Arbor Brow. 11.Given all of the above, there is nothing that leads me to the conclusion that the proposed development would result in harm to highway safety and in this respect, the proposal is not contrary to the Framework or to Local Plan policies CS7 and CS19 which, amongst other things, seek to prevent harm to highway safety. Other Matters 12.The Council, in its decision notice, states that the proposal would result in overshadowing and loss of light but in this regard, I find that the proposal would lead to little discernible change to the current situation and there is no substantive evidence to the contrary. However, this is not a factor that reduces the significance of the harm identified above. 13.I note that the neighbouring occupiers of Hillside support the proposal. However, I have found that the proposal would result in significant harm and this is not a factor that is changed or outweighed by this letter of support. 1 Knowsley Local Plan Core Strategy (2016). 2 Knowsley Replacement Unitary Development Plan (2006). Appeal Decision APP/V4305/D/18/3215237 3 Conclusion 14.For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed. N McGurk INSPECTOR