Rear single storey extension to rear elevation

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/Z4310/D/18/3216105 54 Barrington Road, Liverpool, L15 3HR  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 Habib Rahman against the decision of Liverpool City Council.  The application Ref 18H/1885, dated 25 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 25 October 2018.  The development proposed is a rear single storey extension to rear elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The development the subject of this appeal has already taken place. Taking this into account, I refer to “the development” in this decision letter. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this case are the effects of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and its effects on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regards to outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal property is an end of terrace two storey brick-built dwelling with a yard area to the rear. It is located in a residential area characterised by the presence of two storey terraced houses with yards to the rear. The ginnel behind the appeal property, between Barrington Road and Claremont Road, is gated. 5. Barrington Road and the surrounding area is densely developed. Houses are built close to the pavement edge and parking is on-street. Resultantly, the yard area to the rear of the street, comprising the yards of houses along Barrington and Claremont Roads and the narrow ginnel in between them, provides for a sense of spaciousness and a degree of relief from the busier street frontages. 6. During my site visit I observed that, save for the presence of occasional small rear extensions, yard areas to the rear of Barrington Road tend to largely comprise areas of private outdoor space. The development the subject of this Appeal Decision APP/Z4310/D/18/3216105 2 appeal fills most of the rear yard of No 54. Whilst its materials are in keeping with those of the host property, the development’s scale is such that it appears to “overwhelm” the yard area, leading it to appear disproportionate. As a consequence, the deveopment does not appear subordinate to the host property. 7. Further to the above, the scale of the development is such that it appears somewhat incongruous in its surroundings, as there is no similar extension present along this part of Barrington Road. 8. Taking all of the above into account, I conclude that the development harms the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which seeks to protect local character. The development is also contrary to Policy H8 of the emerging Liverpool Local Plan, which also seeks to protect local character. Whilst the Liverpool Local Plan has not yet been adopted and its policies do not carry full weight, I note that the document is at an advanced stage, having been submitted for examination. Living Conditions 9. The development is located in very close proximity to the rear yard of the neighbouring dwelling, No 56 Barrington Road. It is clearly visible above the boundary wall between the two properties and due to its very close proximity, its height and its length, the development “looms” to the side of No 56’s yard to an overbearing degree, drawing attention to itself as an unduly dominant feature. 10.The above results in a detrimental impact on the outlook from the rear ground floor window of No 56 Barrington Road, as well as from the rear yard of that property. Consequently, I find that the development is harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regards to outlook. This is contrary to the Framework, which seeks to protect residential amenity. It is also contrary to Policy H8 of the emerging Liverpool Local Plan, which also seeks to protect residential amenity. Other Matters 11.In its reasons for refusal, the Council states that the development provides for insufficient private outdoor space. However, during my site visit there appeared to be sufficient external space for bin storage and access, and for cycle storage and there is no substantive evidence before me to the contrary. However, notwithstanding this, I have found that the development results in significant harm and hence the decision below. Conclusion 12.For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed. N McGurk INSPECTOR