Rear two storey extension, new detached double garage, and raised deck to rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 March 2019 by Sarah Manchester BSc MSc PhD MIEnvSc an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8th April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/G0908/D/18/3218680 17 Main Road, Seaton, Workington CA14 1HF • 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 & Mrs Johnstone against the decision of Allerdale Borough Council. • The application Ref HOU/2018/0218, dated 16 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 14 December 2018. • The development proposed is a rear two storey extension, new detached double garage, and raised deck to rear. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The Council has confirmed that it has no concerns in respect of the proposed detached double garage, and I agree. 3. The main issue is therefore the effect of the proposed 2 storey extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 16 Main Road, with particular reference to outlook from the rear of the property. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a semi-detached 2 storey dwelling, with a garden to the rear which is accessed via a private driveway to the side of the property. There is an existing single storey extension to the rear elevation which extends across the entire width of the host property. The attached property, No 16, has a conservatory to the rear elevation which is set in from the shared boundary. 5. The proposed 2 storey extension would be located immediately on the boundary shared with No 16 and adjacent to the conservatory. It would extend beyond the building line of the existing single storey extension and the conservatory. It would have an eaves height to match the host dwelling, with a hipped roof set below the existing 2 storey ridgeline. 6. While there is an existing single storey extension to the rear of No 17, as a result of its increased height and length immediately on the shared boundary, the proposed 2 storey extension would be a significantly more bulky form of development in this location. There would be no windows in the side elevation facing No 16, so that the proposed development would not result in overlooking Appeal Decision APP/G0908/D/18/3218680 2 of the neighbouring property. Moreover, due to the orientation of the properties, my impression is that the proposed extension would not result in a significant loss of sunlight or daylight to the conservatory. Nevertheless, it would be noticeably large and visually obtrusive when viewed from the rear of the neighbouring property and particularly from the conservatory, a room in which occupiers may spend a considerable amount of time. In this respect, it would be a dominant and overbearing form of development. 7. I have been made aware of apparently similar 2 storey extensions elsewhere. However, my impression is that these differ from the appeal scheme including in respect of height, length, width, and relationship to neighbouring properties. They are not therefore directly comparable to the proposed development, and do not provide a justification for the appeal scheme before me. In any event, the appeal proposal must be considered on its own merits. 8. For the reasons set out above, I therefore conclude that by virtue of its height, length and proximity to the boundary, the proposed extension would be an unneighbourly and overbearing form of development and it would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 16. It would be in conflict with policies S2, S32, DM14 and DM15 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1) adopted July 2014. These policies require, amongst other things, that development ensures a good standard of amenity for existing and future residents, including by avoiding overlooking and overbearing, and by avoiding harm to existing development at the site boundaries and to the amenity of the occupants of neighbouring properties. Other matters 9. The appellant has drawn my attention to support for the scheme from the current occupiers of No 16, and considers that this has not been given appropriate weight in decision making. While I acknowledge the views of the existing occupiers of the neighbouring property, I am mindful of the ways in which future occupiers might reasonably expect to use the property and must consider use over its lifetime. Therefore, and notwithstanding that the appellant considers that the adjacent conservatory is a temporary structure and is not a habitable room, I have found that the proposals would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property. Conclusion 10. For the reasons set out above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Sarah Manchester INSPECTOR