Erection of a single storey rear extension and alterations to the roof including raising the ridge height; hip to gable and front and rear dormers to facilitate a loft conversion. New Rear Decking Staircase

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 March 2019 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9th April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/D1780/D/19/3221874 23 Barnes Road, Southampton SO19 5FG • 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 Todd against the decision of Southampton City Council. • The application, Ref. 18/02092, dated 17 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 10 January 2019. • The development proposed is the erection of a single storey rear extension and alterations to the roof including raising the ridge height; hip to gable and front and rear dormers to facilitate a loft conversion. New Rear Decking Staircase. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension and alterations to the roof including raising the ridge height; hip to gable and front and rear dormers to facilitate a loft conversion. New Rear Decking Staircase at 23 Barnes Road, Southampton in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 18/02092, dated 17 November 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this Decision; 2) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing Nos. PG Nos. 01; 02; 03; 04; 05; 06; 07; 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building; 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order), no windows, doors or other openings, other than those expressly authorised by this permission, shall be inserted at and above ground floor level in the side elevations of the development hereby permitted; 5) The proposed window in the north eastern side elevation, located at first floor level of the hereby approved development, shall be obscurely glazed and fixed shut up to a height of 1.7 metres from the internal floor level before the development is first occupied. The window shall thereafter be permanently retained in that form. Appeal Decision APP/D1780/D/19/3221874 2 Main Issues 2. The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the Barnes Road street scene, and (ii) the effect on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers as regard privacy and outlook. Reasons 3. On the first issue, I saw on my visit that the character and appearance of the Barnes Road street scene is varied. There is a row of terraced houses; bungalows with substantial roof extensions to form two storey accommodation, and two or three original mid 20th Century bungalows, including the appeal property, largely in their original form. 4. Bearing in mind that No. 23, the neighbour immediately to the east, has a large first floor element with a dominant gabled frontage and that there is a substantial fall in land level away from the road with the dwelling also lower than its neighbours, I see no reason why the proposed hip to gable and dormer roof extensions would draw the eye as being too large for the site or out of keeping. There is a building of essentially the same design as No. 23 at No. 33; an extended side gabled bungalow at No. 27, and at the end of a terrace of houses the eastern flank of No. 11 is a prominent gable. 5. Taking this diverse context, together with the somewhat dated and limited accommodation of the existing building, I do not consider it necessary for extensions to the property to strictly follow the Residential Design Guide as set out in the officer’s report. To the extent that they depart from it, no harm would be caused to the dwelling and the street scene. For a bungalow of this age, design and size to be restricted to ‘subservient’ extensions, there would in my view need to be a clearly established rhythm of the same dwelling type in the road that read as a cohesive and locally distinctive development pattern and visual entity. This is not the case in Barnes Road. 6. On the second issue, the Council argues that the roof extension would be overbearing in the outlook from Nos. 21 and 25. However, as the property effectively shares the same building front and rear lines as these dwellings and they have almost no outlook to the sides, I do not see how this could be the case. 7. As regards overlooking and a resultant loss of privacy, there is already overlooking of No. 23’s rear garden from the dormer at No. 25. A reciprocal overlooking would be partially restricted by the garage adjoining the boundary between the two properties, even allowing for the height of the proposed windows. The Council has also suggested a condition restricting the outlook from the proposed window in the east elevation of the extended roof. 8. As regards the bungalow at No. 21, this is already overlooked from the upstairs rear windows of No. 11 to the west. And the mature hedge and tree screening along the boundary with No. 23 would almost entirely preclude views from the proposed dormer windows, albeit I acknowledge this vegetation may not be there permanently. I also note that there are no objections submitted from either neighbour, and whilst in itself is not determinative this is normally a Appeal Decision APP/D1780/D/19/3221874 3 reliable indication that the adjoining occupiers do not perceive a proposed development as harmfully affecting their living conditions. 9. Overall, I conclude that there would neither be harm caused to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and street scene nor to the ‘residential amenities’ of Nos. 21 and 25 Barnes Road. Accordingly, there would be no harmful conflict with Policy CS 13 of the Council’s Core Strategy 2010; Policy SP1(i) of the Amended Local Plan Review 2015; Policies SDP 7 (iii) & (iv) & SDP 9 (i) & (iv) of the Local Plan Review 2006; the relevant paragraphs of the Residential Design Guide SPD 2006, and Section 12: ‘Achieving Well-Designed Places’ of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019. 10. I shall therefore allow the appeal. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is needed for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. A condition stipulating matching external materials will safeguard the appearance of the dwelling and maintain visual amenity. Conditions restricting the outlook from the side window and withdrawing permitted development rights will safeguard the living conditions for the adjoining occupiers. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR