Double storey extension to side and roof space conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 April 2019 by Chris Baxter BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/E2001/D/19/3222311 9 St Albans Close, Beverley HU17 8PZ • 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 Carl Martin against the decision of East Riding of Yorkshire Council. • The application Ref 18/03838/PLF, dated 26 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 30 January 2019. • The development proposed is described as “Double storey extension to side and roof space conversion.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 20 Salisbury Avenue (No 20) with particular regard to outlook and light. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling with No 20 located directly adjacent. The proposed extension would be developed up to the boundary with No 20. The rear elevation of No 20 has windows which would be in close proximity to the proposed extension. The proposed extension would be large in both height and width which would create a dominant expanse of built development along the boundary of the site. This would have a detrimental effect on the current views from the rear windows of No 20 interrupting the outlook. 4. The proximity of the windows and rear garden area of No 20 to the proposal would result in the extension having an unavoidable and overbearing presence that would dominate the outlook from No 20 and harm the living conditions of the occupants. The large expanse of built development would also have a significant adverse effect on the daylight into the rear garden of No 20 and this would compound the harmful effect. 5. The appellant has offered to amend the roof design of the extension to incorporate a hipped roof. I have no evidence to suggest that the Council have made an assessment on a hipped roof design extension or whether the views of interested parties have been sought. I therefore attached no weight to this matter, and I have determined the appeal on the basis of those plans considered by the Council. Appeal Decision APP/E2001/D/19/3222311 2 6. The appellant’s statement is critical of the Council in terms of suggestions for alternative schemes and timescales of correspondence. This does not alter my assessment of the planning merits of the scheme. 7. The proposed extension would therefore have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 20 with particular regard to outlook and light. The proposal fails to comply with the objectives of Policy ENV1 of the East Riding Local Plan 2016 and the East Riding Design Guidance for House Extensions which seek development to have regard to the amenity of existing properties. Conclusion 8. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Chris Baxter INSPECTOR