Orangery, utility and downstairs toilet

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 April 2019 by Alison Partington BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12th April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/C2708/D/19/3220590 16 Marshfield Road, Settle, North Yorkshire BD24 9DA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr Steven Mounsey against the decision of Craven District Council. • The application Ref 2018/19884/LHSHLD, dated 23 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 10 December 2018. • The development proposed is an orangery, utility and downstairs toilet. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for an orangery, utility and downstairs toilet at 16 Marshfield Road, Settle, North Yorkshire BD24 9DA in accordance with the application 2018/19884/LHSHLD made on 23 September 2018, and the details submitted with it including the Extension Plan TQRQM18263105252359 and the Conservatory Proposal Plan, pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4(2). Procedural Matters 2. The appeal form indicates that the appeal is against the refusal of planning permission for the development, but it is clear from other documentation that the appeal is against the refusal of prior approval of permitted development rights. I have determined the appeal on this basis. 3. The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (GDPO), under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, Part A.4(7) require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development solely on the basis of its impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. My determination of this appeal has been made on the same basis. 4. The appellant has raised concerns with the Council’s handling of the case. This is a matter that would need to be taken up with the Council in the first instance and in determining the appeal I have only had regard to the planning merits as outlined above. Appeal Decision APP/C2708/D/19/3220590 2 Reasons 5. The appeal property is a semi-detached house and the proposed single storey extension would extend across most of the rear elevation with just a small gap to the common boundary with No 14. This adjoining property has a window on the ground floor that is close to the common boundary and which appeared to serve a habitable room. 6. As the appeal property is located to the east of No 14, any overshadowing caused by the proposal of the adjacent house and its rear garden would be limited to first thing in the morning. Therefore, I am satisfied that the proposal would not create an unacceptable loss of sunlight to this property or its garden area. 7. Although it would project around 4.4m from the rear elevation of the house, the height of the extension is modest, with the eave height being approximately 2.1m. In addition, the shallow pitch roof would slope away from the adjoining property, with the highest part of the roof being set away from the common boundary. Given this, I consider the proposal would not have an overbearing impact on the neighbouring property and that the occupiers of this house would still have a pleasant outlook from the windows on the rear elevation. Moreover, given the limited height of the proposed extension, the height of some of the existing vegetation close to the common boundary and bearing in mind the height of a fence that could be erected on the boundary without requiring planning permission and, I consider it would not create an unneighbourly sense of enclosure to the garden area of No 14. 8. Although there are some windows proposed along the side elevation facing No 14, these are high level windows and so would not result in unacceptable levels of overlooking of the neighbouring property. 9. As a result of the driveway between the appeal property and No 18, the rear extension already on this property, and the position of the windows on its rear elevation, I am satisfied that the extension would not adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling. 10. Overall, I consider that the proposed extension would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 14 or No 18 Marshfield Road. Conclusion and Conditions 11. For the reasons set out above, I conclude the appeal should be allowed and prior approval should be granted. 12. Any permission granted for an orangery, utility and downstairs toilet under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GDPO is subject to the conditions A.4(13), A.4(14) and A.4(15), which specify that the development shall be completed on or before 30th May 2019, that the developer shall notify the local planning authority in writing of the completion of the development as soon as reasonably practicable after completion, and such notification shall include the name of the developer, the address or location of the development, and the date of completion. Alison Partington INSPECTOR