Double storey rear extension, loft conversion including hip to gable, raising roof and seven skylight windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 January 2019 by J Slominski BA(Hons) MCD an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29th April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/K0425/D/18/3217146 Oldlands, Queens Road, High Wycombe, HP13 6AQ • 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 Helen Hall against the decision of Wycombe District Council. • The application Ref 18/06805/FUL, dated 10/07/2018, was refused by notice dated 04/09/2018. • The development proposed is a Double storey rear extension, loft conversion including hip to gable, raising roof and seven skylight windows. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I carried out a site visit on 25 January 2019. The appellant failed to attend the site visit to provide access, but I was able to view the site and its surroundings from public views including from the site’s driveway, the gaps between buildings, and from Stuart Road. Main Issues 3. The main issues are: i. The effect of the proposed extension on living conditions at 2 Stuart Road, with regard to privacy, overlooking and visual amenity; and ii. the effect of the proposal on parking. Reasons Living Conditions 4. The appeal site is a detached house on a small plot, and is located close to the nearest property to the rear at no.2 Stewarts Road. 5. The proposed rear extension would have two storeys, and would reduce the distance between the appeal property and 2 Stuarts Road. Although the properties are already close together, the potential for overlooking would be significantly increased as a result of the increased proximity. 6. At ground floor level, an existing utility room window allows limited views over the fence towards 2 Stuarts Road. Following the development, a large dining room would overlook no.2 which, as a main living space, would increase Appeal Decision APP/K0425/D/18/3217146 2 opportunities for overlooking. Although that overlooking would be partially obscured by the fence and a shed at the rear of no.2, due to the slope of the land it would be worse than the existing situation. 7. At first floor there would be a new bedroom window which would substantially increase overlooking into the side and rear elevation windows at 2 Stuarts Road, including windows which serve habitable rooms. 8. As a result of the proposed extension, the closest distance between the windows at the appeal site and no.2 would be reduced from 10m to 6m, which would significantly reduce the privacy available to the occupants at no.2. 9. The combined impacts of the extension’s proximity to no.2, its scale size, and its position on higher ground, would result in an overbearing impact on the outlook available to the windows and garden at no.2. 10. The extension would therefore be harmful to the visual amenities, outlook and privacy currently available to the occupiers at no.2 contrary to Policies G8 and H17 of the Adopted High Wycombe District Council Local Plan to 2011 (as saved, extended and partially replaced) (“the Local Plan”) and Policy CS19 of the Adopted Core Strategy (July 2008) (“the Core Strategy”) which together require good design and seek to maintain adequate living conditions for neighbouring occupiers. 11. Whilst I acknowledge that the area is built up and houses are situated close together, the very limited distance between the proposed extension and no.2 does not reflect the prevailing form of development in the surroundings. I have had regard to the surrounding pattern of development and noted that windows of nos. 4 and 6 Stuart Road are relatively close together, however the relationship between those windows does not justify the impacts of the proposal. 12. The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of approved developments in the vicinity, to demonstrate that infill developments and extensions are characteristic of the local area. As far as I am aware the Council has not objected to the principle of an extension to Oldlands, but has instead refused the particular extension proposed because of its specific impacts on the amenities at no.2. The examples provided to me do not have the same impacts as the proposed extension and do not justify the harm I have identified to neighbouring living conditions. Parking 13. The appeal site is located no more than ten minutes’ walking distance of several facilities and public transport links in High Wycombe town centre, including High Wycombe station and various bus routes on London Road and Amersham Hill. The proposal would comply with Policy CS20 of the Core Strategy which requires safe and convenient access to public transport by foot and cycle. 14. Policy T2 of the Local Plan requires adequate provision to be made for on-site parking, and limits parking spaces in accordance with Appendix 9 (which sets a limit of 2 spaces for a 4-5 bedroom house) to avoid overprovision. The proposal would retain two parking spaces on its front driveway and would therefore retain an appropriate balance between adequate provision and overprovision of parking. The proposal would comply with Policy T2. Appeal Decision APP/K0425/D/18/3217146 3 15. The Buckinghamshire Countywide Parking Guidance 2015 (the “Garking Guidance”) defines “habitable” rooms (on page 11) as including kitchens and utility rooms; therefore for the purposes of the Parking Guidance I agree with the Council that the development would result in 4-5 bedrooms or 9 habitable rooms. The retention of 2 parking spaces would not comply with the Parking Guidance, which advises a requirement of 3 parking spaces for those with 5 bedrooms (8+ habitable rooms) based on 2001 census data. 16. The parking guidance is based on 2001 census data, and relates to new residential developments, with no mention of residential extensions. It provides general guidance which covers a large geographical zone including locations several kilometres from a town centre or train station. 17. I acknowledge that there are high parking stresses locally, evidenced by the 2016 Paul Mew Associates Transport & Parking Assessment (which was for a different development at 15 Station Road, but is a material consideration). However, the site is in a very accessible location and therefore is not highly dependent on private car use. Due to the limited plot width it would not be possible to provide three parking spaces, and the two retained parking spaces are the maximum that can be achieved on-site. 18. Planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. I have found that the retention of two parking spaces would comply with the development plan. In making its decision the Council placed greater weight on the Parking Guidance (which is a material consideration) than Policy T2 of the Local Plan, presumably because the parking guidance is more recent (although no explanation was given). However the parking guidance is not directly relevant to residential extensions and should not be rigidly applied in all circumstances. In this case I have had regard to the site’s highly accessible location and the limited scale of development, and I do not find that the failure to comply with the Parking Guidance outweighs the provisions of the development plan. Other Matters 19. The site falls just outside of the High Wycombe Conservation Area. The existing house has an individual design with a hipped roof and painted elevations. The proposal would replace the hipped roof with one of increased height and a gable end design. It would remain lower than Queens Court to the east, and would reflect the design of Kingswood House to the west. The design of the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. 20. The application was refused for non-compliance with Policies DM33, DM35 and DM36 of the emerging Wycombe District Local Plan (2018). Those draft policies are generally in line with the aims of the currently development plan insofar as appropriate parking provision and living conditions would remain policy requirements. As far as I am aware those policies have not been adopted, therefore in line with their status as emerging policies I have afforded them less weight than the adopted development plan policies. Appeal Decision APP/K0425/D/18/3217146 4 Conclusion 21. Although I have found that the development’s parking impacts would be adequately and proportionately addressed through the retention of the existing on-site parking spaces, the proposal’s impacts on living conditions and visual amenity at 2 Stuart Road are unacceptable and not outweighed by the proposal’s benefits. For the reasons above, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Jan Slominski INSPECTOR