2-storey side and rear extension and a single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 April 2019 by Mr M Brooker DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3 June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/W0734/D/19/3220920 27 Green Lane, Middlesbrough TS5 7SJ • 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 A Aurangzeb against the decision of Middlesbrough Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/0631/FUL, dated 19 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 3 December 2018. • The development proposed is a 2-storey side and rear extension and a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The area surrounding the appeal site is characterised by detached, linked and semi-detached residential properties set within plots that are broadly commiserate with the size of the dwelling. The plots generally include space to the side of the dwellings, creating clear separation between neighbouring properties. 4. I note the appellant’s contention that the proposal complies with certain aspects of the detailed guidance contained within the SPD. The submitted plans show that the two-storey element of the front extension is set back from the front elevation of the host property as required by the SPD. However, the SPD also requires that proposed development should not look out of place in the street and should enhance, not detract, from the character of the area. 5. The proposed part two and part single storey extension would occupy a significant portion of the space to the rear of the dwelling and almost all of the space to the side. The prominence of the appeal property, and therefore the proposed side extension, within the surrounding area is greatly increased by virtue of the neighbouring property, 25 Green Lane, being a single storey bungalow. Appeal Decision APP/W0734/D/19/3220920 2 6. I therefore find that the proposed extension would appear as a prominent and incongruous feature to the detriment of the character and appearance of the surrounding area contrary to the guidance set out in the Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document and as required by policies DC1 and CS5 of the Middlesbrough Local Development Framework Core Strategy (the LP) that amongst other matters seek development of good design that relates well to the surrounding area. Living Conditions 7. The submitted plans show the proposed development would be positioned very close to the boundaries with properties to the side and to the rear. The existing boundary consists of a tall close boarded fence, with the exception of one part that is formed by an existing flat roofed garage that would be demolished as part of the proposed development. 8. The boundary treatment would effectively screen the proposed development from view from the ground floor and garden areas of the neighbouring properties. 9. Consequently, while the proposed development is in close proximity to the neighbouring properties there would not be a significant harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring. As such, there is no conflict with policies DC1 and CS5 of the LP that amongst other matters seek the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. Other Matters 10. The appellant has referred to permitted development rights that would allow the erection of various extensions to the property. I have not been provided with full details of such a scheme or how it relates to the proposed development subject of this appeal. Consequently, I can only give this matter limited weight and it does not outweigh the harm I have identified previously. Conclusion 11. For the reasons detailed above, the appeal is dismissed Mark Brooker INSPECTOR