Two storey extension to the front of the property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 January 2019 by S J Lee BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12th February 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/A0665/D/18/3215461 10 Thames Place, Winsford CW7 3LG • 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 Claire Curzon against the decision of Cheshire West & Chester Council. • The application Ref 18/02261/FUL, dated 7 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 13 September 2018. • The development proposed is two storey extension to the front of the property. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The first reason for refusal in the Council’s decision notice refers to Policy DM21 of the Chester and Cheshire West Local Plan Part 1 (CWCLP1)(2015). However, the second reason for refusal attributes this policy to the emerging Part 2 plan. There is no indication that this plan has been adopted and thus I have treated this policy accordingly. Main Issues 3. The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the living conditions of nearby properties, with particular regard to outlook and privacy; and • the character and appearance of the area. Reasons Living conditions 4. The appeal relates to a semi-detached dwelling within a predominantly residential area. The dwelling forms part of a small row of three semi-detached pairs, which face a row of identical houses across a narrow pedestrian access. Vehicular access is to the rear of the dwellings. There are a number of similar rows of dwellings on nearby roads which run perpendicular to Trent Avenue. There is therefore something of a coherent and consistent make-up of this short street and the others like it. 5. The Council has indicated that the host dwelling is currently around 18 metres from the opposite house. The development would reduce this distance by just Appeal Decision APP/A0665/D/18/3215461 2 over 2 metres. The Vale Royal Supplementary Guidance 3: Housing Extensions – A Design Guide (HESPG)(1996) suggests that windows of dwellings facing each other should not be less than 22 metres apart. The development would therefore result in a distance significantly less than the guidance indicates is acceptable in terms of privacy. The appellant has not disputed these figures. 6. While noting that this is only guidance, I have no reason to conclude it should not carry substantial weight. In addition, there is nothing to suggest it does not reflect a reasonable starting point with which to consider the likely impact of development. There is already likely to be a degree of overlooking from the upper floor windows of the host property. However, the reduction in distance between windows would result in both a perceived and real loss of privacy for those sitting in ground floor habitable rooms or making use of the front garden. The feeling of being overlooked would tangibly diminish the enjoyment of these spaces to the detriment of the living conditions of any occupants. 7. No 10 will already dominate the outlook from the dwelling opposite. By virtue of the reduction in distance between dwellings, there would be some change and possible detriment to this outlook. While this would be unlikely to cause sufficient harm to justify withholding permission in its own right, it would add to the cumulative impact of the development and my overall concerns over its impact on living conditions. 8. I therefore conclude that there would be unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbours. This would conflict with policies H8 and BE1 of the Vale Royal Local Plan (VRLP)(2006) and the HESPG which seek, amongst other things, to ensure development does not have a significant detrimental effect on the amenity of people living nearby. It would also conflict with paragraph 127f of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which expects development to create places with a high standard of amenity for existing users. 9. In accordance with paragraph 48 of the Framework, I have given only moderate weight to CWCLP Part 2 as I been provided with no information of the extent to which there are unresolved objections. Nevertheless, there would be some conflict with Policy DM21 of this document which seeks, amongst other things, to ensure development does not cause harm to the amenities of existing residents. Character and appearance 10. Although there have been alterations to a number of buildings at ground floor level, particularly in relation to porches, each of the dwellings on the row have broadly maintained their original scale and character. The host dwelling has an enclosed uPVC porch, whereas the neighbouring property has a full width overhanging canopy. The symmetry of the pairing has therefore already been diminished to an extent without undue harm. 11. The extension would clearly lead to further imbalance between the two dwellings. While this need not be harmful in principle, I saw no other two storey extensions on similar house types. As such, the height and scale of the development at first floor level in particular would be seen as a somewhat large and incongruous addition that would be unsympathetic to the existing character of the pairing and to the street scene. Appeal Decision APP/A0665/D/18/3215461 3 12. The degree of harm would be mitigated to a small degree by the site’s location toward the end of the row. However, the discordant nature of the two-storey extension would still be readily apparent from the private views of nearby residents and from the junction with Trent Avenue and Thames Place. Indeed, the relatively short nature of the street would also serve to draw attention to the overtly different appearance of the dwelling. The lack of variety in house types, particularly at first floor level, would also emphasise the difference. The harm caused would also not be diluted by medium or long distance views along the street. 13. I find therefore that on balance the development would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street. Accordingly, there would be conflict with CWCLP1 Policy ENV6, saved policies H8 and BE1 of the VRLP and the HESPG which seek, amongst other things, that extensions respect local character and the scale, size and design of the existing and neighbouring properties. There would also be conflict with paragraph 127c of the Framework which requires development to be sympathetic to local character. 14. Notwithstanding the weight given to this policy, there would be conflict with emerging CWCLP Part 2 Policy DM21 which seeks to ensure extensions are in keeping with the character and appearance of the area. Other Matters 15. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 dictates that planning decisions must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 16. I understand the wishes of the appellant to provide additional space and improve the standard of accommodation available. However, such personal circumstances seldom outweigh general planning considerations. I have also noted the assertion that the development may encourage others to extend in similar ways. However, there is no guarantee that such development would take place and thus this carries very little weight in my decision. A lack of objection from neighbours is noted, but this does not alter my view that the development would be harmful. 17. The appellant has drawn my attention to other extensions and alterations that have taken place in the area. I do not have the full details of these cases and thus cannot conclude with any certainty that they are directly parallel to the case before me. It is clear from the photographic evidence and my own observations that some of the examples are single storey only and/or to the side of the dwelling. As such, the are not comparable to this proposal. There is no doubt that alterations are not unacceptable in principle, but having considered the appeal on its own merit I am not persuaded that these examples are sufficient to outweigh the concerns expressed above. 18. There are therefore no material considerations that would lead me to a decision other than in accordance with the development plan in this case. Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. S J Lee INSPECTOR