Conversion of existing loft area incorporating hip to gable end, rear dormer and roof lights to front elevation, all to form 3 bedrooms, and ensuite and family bathroom. Raise existing decking area to height as shown beneath bi fold doors

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 May 2019 by Philip Willmer BSc Dip Arch RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Q1445/D/19/3223772 56 Millcroft, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 5HD. • 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 G and Miss J Salmon against the decision of Brighton and Hove Council. • The application Ref BH2018/03202, dated 18 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 30 January 2019. • The development proposed is described as conversion of existing loft area incorporating hip to gable end, rear dormer and roof lights to front elevation, all to form 3 bedrooms, and ensuite and family bathroom. Raise existing decking area to height as shown beneath bi fold doors. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr G and Miss J Salmon against Brighton and Hove Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Main Issues 3. I consider the main issues to be: • the effect of the proposed decking on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers of 54 Millcroft, in terms of its potential to result in overlooking and loss of privacy; and, • the effect of the proposed development on the architectural integrity of the host property and the character and appearance of the wider area. Procedural Matters 4. In framing its first reason for refusal the Council indicated the proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy and create a sense of overlooking to the occupants of 114 Eldred Avenue. However, Eldred Avenue is located several streets away from the appeal site and therefore the proposal would have no impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of that property. The Council has, however, subsequently confirmed that this was an unfortunate error and that their concern related to the development’s potential impact on the occupiers of number 54 Millcroft. Having given the parties the opportunity to review their cases in the light of this error, I shall proceed to Appeal Decision APP/Q1445/D/19/3223772 2 determine the appeal on the basis of the potential impact of the development on the living conditions of 54 Millcroft. Reasons 5. The appeal property, 56 Millcroft, is a single storey semi-detached dwelling. The rear garden slopes away across the site to the east. As I saw it has an existing area of decking set below ground floor level. 6. The appellants propose replacing the hip roof to form a new gabled roof, the construction of a rear box dormer, insertion of rooflights in the street facing roof slope and construction of a raised rear decking area, accessed from new bi-fold doors from the dining room. Living conditions 7. The rear gardens of this and the neighbouring properties, numbers 54 and 58, are all set well below their ground floor levels. Accordingly, and despite any intervening screen planting to the boundaries, I consider that due to the potential for people to congregate on the proposed decking there is the potential for both perceived and actual overlooking that would lead to a sense of the use of the decking being both overbearing and resulting in an unacceptable loss of privacy. However, given the distance between the proposed decking and the boundary to number 58 the harm would, in that case, be deminimus. 8. The height of the proposed screening to the deck scales just 1.1 metres or so on the drawings and therefore, other than when someone was sitting on the deck, it would not provide effective privacy screening of number 54. The appellants have suggested that higher screens could be conditioned at the northern and southern ends of the deck to overcome overlooking. However, due to the deck’s proximity to the boundary at the southern end a raised screen would add to the overall overbearing impact of the deck. 9. My attention has been drawn to appeal Ref: APP/Q1445/D/16/3156489 in respect of a raised deck at 18 Friar Road, Brighton. I accept that as in that case there is already a degree of mutual overlooking of neighbouring gardens from the existing ground floor windows. However, and whatever the detailed circumstances surrounding that case, given the overall length and depth of the proposed deck here, its relationship to the boundaries and the introduction of bi-fold doors to replace the existing more modest windows in the rear elevation I am not persuaded that the current and proposed potential for overlooking are, in this case, directly comparable to that at 18 Friar Road. 10. I therefore conclude, in respect of the first main issue, that the proposed decking would cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at number 54 in terms of its potential to result in overlooking and loss of privacy. It would therefore be contrary to Policies QD14 and QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan (2005) (LP) and Policy CP12 of Brighton and Hove City Council’s Development Plan – Brighton and Hove City Plan Part One (March 2016) (CP) as they seek to protect residential amenity. Character and appearance 11. I observed on my site visit that there are a variety of roof forms to the properties in the road. However, this semi-detached pair of bungalows, Appeal Decision APP/Q1445/D/19/3223772 3 comprising numbers 54 and 56, is one pair in a group of three that despite other alterations to their roofs have retained their existing hip roofs. The replacement of the hip roof to number 56 would, despite other more minor alterations to the roof of number 54, serve to unbalance the semi-detached pair and thereby detract from the established character and form of the pair and the immediate neighbouring development. In addition the proposed rooflights would exacerbate this imbalance and add to the visual clutter of the roof scape here. 12. My attention has been drawn to an earlier appeal (APP/Q1445/D/14/2229832) in respect of 43 Hillcrest, Westdene, Brighton. In that case the Inspector found, amongst other things, that the introduction of a gable was relatively insignificant and that it had not harmed or unbalanced the pair of bungalows nor did it appear incongruous within the wider street scene. However, I have not found that to be the case here. 13. The proposed rear dormer due to its depth and overall width would appear large and bulky. This would further detract from the character and appearance of the host property. In reaching my conclusion in respect of the proposed rear dormer I have been mindful of the appeal at 18 McWilliam Road (APP/Q1445/D/15/3134936) as well as the variety of the design of dormers in the locality. Nevertheless, in my judgement, the proposed dormer here because of its bulky form would aggravate the harm to the host property caused by the loss of the hip. 14. I have noted the roof alteration to 49 Millcroft on the opposite side of the road. Whatever the circumstances surrounding that development I do not consider it an appropriate justification for the development here that, in any case, I have considered on its individual planning merits. 15. I therefore conclude, in respect of the second main issue, that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the architectural integrity of the host property and the character and appearance of the wider area. To allow it would be contrary to the aims of LP Policy QD14 and CP Policy CP12, as they relate to, amongst other things, the need for new development to be well designed, sited and detailed in relation to the property to be extended, adjoining properties and to the surrounding area. Conclusions 16. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Philip Willmer INSPECTOR