First floor side extension over existing garage and canopy to the front elevation of a detached dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 December 2018 by K Winnard LL.B (Hons) Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/M0655/D/18/3215603 34 Fowley Common Lane, Culcheth and Glazebury, Warrington WA3 5JN • 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 Tony Lewis against the decision of Warrington Borough Council. • The application Ref 2018/32863, dated 17 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 3 September 2018. • The development proposed is first floor side extension over existing garage and canopy to the front elevation of a detached dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor side extension over existing garage and canopy to the front elevation at 34 Fowley Common Lane, Culcheth and Glazebury, Warrington in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2018/32863 dated 17th May 2018, and the plans submitted with it, 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 plan: 822/FCL/PL Rev B. 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. 4) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the rear window in the first floor elevation has been fitted with obscured glazing, with a glazing rating at least 4. Once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. Procedural Matters 2. The property is located within the Green Belt. This matter is not at issue between the parties and the Council has accepted that the proposal is not inappropriate development within the Green Belt. I agree with this assessment and my decision deals solely with the reason for refusal given by the Council. 3. The Council changed the description of the development to include a canopy to the front elevation. I have adopted the Council’s description of the Appeal Decision: APP/M0665/D/18/3215603 2 development as this describes the proposal more accurately. The Council’s reason for refusal relates solely to the first floor side extension. Main Issue 4. The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbours at no 36 Fowley Common Lane in terms of any overbearing impact and loss of light. Reasons 5. No 34 Fowley Lane is a large two storey dwelling. To the west is situated No 36, a large detached bungalow. The properties are separated by a substantial boundary treatment comprising of fencing and trees. A single storey side garage with a pitched roof sits to the side of the appeal property and the outlook from the rear habitable room window at No 36 is towards the brick wall of the side elevation of this garage. The appeal relates to the construction of a first floor extension which would see an increase from one to two storeys, increasing the height of the wall of the side elevation over the garage. 6. The orientation of the appeal property is such that the rear habitable room window at no.36 does not directly face the appeal property. No 36 is also set in from the boundary on the line of the existing garage and this, along with a modest garden area, provides a separation gap between no.36 and the proposed development. As a result, whilst there would be an increase in the mass of the appeal property as a result of the extension, the distance between the dwellings, and the limited extent to which the proposal would be apparent from the facing window would mean that the size of the extension would be unlikely to have a significantly greater effect than the present building. As such, I do not consider that the appeal proposal would give rise to an overbearing effect for the occupiers of no.36. 7. With regard to the effect of the proposal on light, No 36 is located to the southeast of the appeal proposal. Whilst the appeal property would be extended at first floor level over the garage, the profile of the building formed by the main gable would be largely unaltered. Due to this, and its orientation on the south east side, the proposal to extend above the garage on a similar line, would not, in my view, have a significant detrimental effect on daylight and sunlight for the occupiers of no.36. In addition, the rear habitable room at no.36 is also served by a window at its other elevation and as such, I consider that there would not be an unacceptable loss of light to this room. 8. The development would not give rise to unacceptable effects to the living conditions of the occupiers of no.36 and would not therefore conflict with Policy QE6 of the Warrington Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy which, includes the need to respect the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties in relation to outlook, sunlight, daylight and overshadowing. Whilst the proposed extension would be located less than the recommended distance guidelines within the Council’s Supplemental Planning Guidance 2 on house extensions, the specific circumstances of the appeal site location and the design and orientation of the neighbouring property would mean that the proposal would still comply with the overall aims contained with Policy QE6 of the Local Plan. Appeal Decision: APP/M0665/D/18/3215603 3 Conclusion and Conditions 9. Accordingly, I allow the appeal. I have imposed conditions in respect of timescale and specifying the approved plans as that provides certainty. I have imposed a condition relating to matching materials in the interest of the character and appearance of the area. I have also imposed a condition in respect of obscure glazing in the first floor rear window in the elevation of the proposed extension, in order to safeguard the living conditions of neighbours. K Winnard INSPECTOR