Appeal 3292486

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for Conversion of existing loft space to a habitable bedroom. Change of roof from hip to gable on both side of the detached house, with opaque glass windows. 3No. new velux windows to the front elevation and 2No. velux windows to the rear elevation. Construction of new stair to the proposed second floor level at [site address] , Rothwell [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2021/0507, dated 15 June 2021, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site location Plan, Block Plan and [name] 221008-P-0001 Revision R05.

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.

The development hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until the windows on both side elevations of the roof extension have been fitted with non-opening obscured glazing and retained as such thereafter.

The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. However, in [name] of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has not changed but, nevertheless, a different wording has been entered. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the one given on the original application.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: i) the character and appearance of the host property; and ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook and sunlight/daylight.

The appeal site is located within an established residential area characterised by a mix of detached and semi-detached houses, and bungalows. The dwellings in the locality have a wide range of designs and have evolved over a period of time resulting in a varied pattern of buildings in terms of location, scale, and design. They utilise a varied palette of materials.

The appeal property comprises a detached house, set back a modest distance from [address]. The proposed development would change its roof design from a hip to a gable and introduce a number of roof lights. Whilst there have been a number of additions to the property since it was originally built, the change in the roof design would not, in itself, result in a significant increase in the size, mass or bulk of the host property. Moreover, the resultant development would be comparable with other properties within the street in terms of scale and mass. Consequently, the appeal proposal would not represent overdevelopment of the property.

The proposed development would complement the character and appearance of the host property in accordance with Policy 8 of the [name] 2011-2031 (CS). This policy requires, amongst other matters, that development should respond to the site’s immediate and wider context and create buildings which draw on the best of local character.

The side elevations of the host property would extend to a greater height, than the current hipped roof. That said, any view of the roof alterations from within Nos 31 and 53, would be restricted due to the position of their windows, the angle of view and the location of the proposed roof extension. Views of the altered roof from the rear gardens of Nos 31 and 53 would be at a distance and obstructed by the existing roof. Moreover, the highest part of the roof would be no higher than the existing roof. As a result, any impact on outlook from those locations would be very limited. Consequently, the proposed development would not have an overbearing impact on the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

I have no evidence before me to indicate what effect the proposed development would have on sunlight or daylight relative to the neighbouring properties. That said, given the orientation of the respective properties, the impact the host property currently has, and the modest scale of roof extensions proposed, any additional impact on sunlight and daylight would be very limited.

The proposed development would provide 2 windows in the new gable elevations. The appellant would accept a condition requiring these windows to be obscure glazed. In the event that I was to allow the appeal I would support the inclusion of such a condition to limit any potential overlooking of neighbouring gardens.

Accordingly, the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook and sunlight/daylight. Consequently, it would accord with Policy 8 of the CS which, amongst other matters, seeks to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties.

I note the representations made by neighbouring residents relating to the existing ‘bungalow’ within the rear garden of the appeal site. This is not however a matter before me in the consideration of this appeal.

To ensure that the development is undertaken as approved, conditions referring to the approved plans and a requirement for matching materials, are necessary. As is the standard time condition. A condition requiring the proposed side windows to be obscurely glazed, and retained thereafter, is necessary to prevent overlooking.

There are no other relevant material considerations worthy of sufficient weight that indicate the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan as a whole. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions set out above.