Erection of two storey side and single storey rear extensions and loft conversion with internal alterations

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 for Housing, Communities and Local Government Decision date: 16 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/P3040/D/18/3215477 128 Loughborough Road, Bradmore NG11 6PA  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 Mark Neve against the decision of Rushcliffe Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/01523/FUL, dated 28 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 22 August 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of two storey side and single storey rear extensions and loft conversion with internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a 2-storey dwelling attached to a former agricultural building (126 Loughborough Road) which has been converted to residential use. By reason of siting and depth, the property’s flank wall extends from the rear elevation of No. 126 and forms part of the shared boundary between these neighbouring properties. Within the side elevation of the property are openings which face towards the rear patio area of No. 126. 4. The proposed development includes a 2-storey side extension, a single storey rear addition and alterations to the property’s roof. Although the details have not been provided, the Council has granted planning permission for a 2-storey side extension and single storey rear extension (Ref 18/00509/FUL). Based upon the Planning Officer’s report, the difference between the approved and appeal schemes is related to the roof alterations which now includes a proposed hip to gable extension. 5. The appellant identifies that the roof extension would be of modest size and is required to create the necessary head height within the roofspace so it can be used as a bedroom by a family member. There is no evidence to suggest that the appellant would not implement the approved scheme if this appeal fails. Accordingly, the approved scheme is a significant material consideration in the determination of this appeal because it represents an implementable fallback position. Appeal Decision APP/P3040/D/18/3215477 2 6. Although already approved, the 2-storey side and single storey rear extensions would add to the bulk of the appeal property adjacent to the shared boundary with No. 126. These extensions would impact upon the outlook of the occupiers of No. 126 albeit this impact has been assessed as being acceptable by the Council. 7. In isolation, the proposed hip to gable roof extension would be of a modest size. However, the proposed roof extension would cumulatively add to the size and bulk of the approved additions to the property. As assessed by the Council, it is this cumulative increase in the size and bulk of the enlarged property which would be an overbearing form of development. This unacceptable harm would be particularly noticeable from the habitable room windows within the original single storey element of No. 126, the conservatory and the bedroom window above the conservatory. 8. The increased size and bulk of the enlarged property would be noticeable from the patio and garden of No. 126. Although this matter alone would not be a reason for this appeal to fail it does add to the unacceptable harm which has been identified. However, the outlook from other openings within the rear elevation of No. 126 would not be harmed because the views would remain towards to the approved extensions rather than the proposed hipped roof. The proposed roof extension would also not reduce levels of sunlight and daylight reaching the openings and garden of No. 126 any further than the approved scheme. 9. Concerns about overlooking and loss of privacy have been raised by the occupiers of The Old Byre and Dovecote Barn. There is already some degree of overlooking from the appeal property towards the rear gardens of these neighbouring dwellings. The inclusion of a further opening at roof level would increase the degree of overlooking but this would not be so substantial so as to amount to a reason for this appeal to fail. This assessment takes into account the separation distances, the context of the courtyard style development and the boundary vegetation. 10. Although it has been identified that the appeal scheme would not materially change the effects of the approved scheme on the occupiers of No. 126 and there would be no substantial increase in overlooking, these matters are significantly and demonstrably outweighed by the identified unacceptable harm caused by the proposed roof extension. Accordingly, it is concluded that the proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and, as such, it would conflict with Policy 10 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1: Core Strategy which requires developments to be assessed in terms of their impact on the amenity of nearby residents. There would be a conflict with Policy GP(2) of the Rushcliffe Non Statutory Replacement Local Plan concerning development not having a significant effect on the amenity of adjoining properties. Although not part of the statutory development plan, it is a material consideration. Other Matters 11. The property forms part of a group of former agricultural buildings and purpose built properties occupied as dwellings. This group of buildings is located within the Bradmore Conservation Area which comprises mainly residential properties with a degree of uniformity in their traditional building styles and materials, in particular red brick and tiles. The dwellings are also generally sited close to Appeal Decision APP/P3040/D/18/3215477 3 the footways or carriageways of roads. There are former agricultural buildings converted to residential use within the Conservation Area. 12. No. 126 is a Listed Building but no details of its heritage significance have been provided. From what was observed and despite the residential use, No. 126 comprises a range of former agricultural buildings constructed of red brick and tile which have generally retained their simple form. There is a similar range of former farm buildings comprising No. 130 which is also a Listed Building. 13. In determining this appeal, there are statutory duties associated with the designated heritage assets. There is a statutory requirement that special regard is had to the desirability of preserving a Listed Building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. There is also a statutory duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. 14. The Council’s Conservation Officer has assessed that the appeal scheme would preserve, rather than harm, the heritage significance of Nos. 126 and 130 in so far as it relates to the setting of these Listed Buildings. The setting of these Listed Buildings would, therefore, be preserved. Further, the Conservation Officer has not identified that the proposed development would do anything other than preserve the Conservation Area’s heritage significance, character and appearance. There are no reasons to disagree with the Conservation Officer’s assessment concerning the effects of the proposed development on these designated heritage assets. 15. The Council has confirmed that, although the property is situated within the Green Belt, the proposed development would not represent a disproportionate addition which would be over and above the size of the original building. There are no reasons to disagree with the Council’s assessment. Accordingly, for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework, the appeal scheme would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 16. Reference is made by the appellant to pre-application discussions with the Planning Officers which did not raise particular concerns about the proposed roof extension. However, pre-application discussions can only include advice from Planning Officers and it is a matter for the Council to formally assess and determine any subsequent application. Conclusion 17. Although there would be no conflict with Green Belt policy, the significance of the designated heritage assets would be preserved and there would be an improved standard of accommodation when compared to the approved scheme, these matters are demonstrably and significantly outweighed the unacceptable harm which would be caused to the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties and the conflict with the development plan. Accordingly, it is concluded that this appeal should be dismissed. D J Barnes INSPECTOR