Appeal 3300461

The appeal is dismissed.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the development comprises “proposed two storey and single storey extensions to rear including balcony, and conversion and extension of existing garage to form granny annexe including raised decking”. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed two-storey extension on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] Barn, with particular reference to privacy, sunlight and outlook.

[address] is a detached, stone built, traditional house. It is in a row of properties located in a small hamlet within the open countryside. The site overlooks fields both to the front and to the rear. The detached garage, which it is proposed to convert into an annex, is accessed from the driveway at the side of the house.

The appeal site is built up to, and along, the boundary with [address] Barn, a detached residential property. Slightly inset from this boundary would be a two-storey rear extension which would extend into the garden for a considerable length and be almost the same depth as the house. The ridge of the extension would be slightly lower than the ridge of the farmhouse.

The proposed two-storey rear extension would include an inset first-floor balcony, with extensive glazing. Whilst views from the balcony would be constrained by the enclosed sides, users of the balcony would be able to overlook, to a significant degree, the area of the rear garden of [address] Barn.

There would be more limited views into the gardens of some of the cottages to the other side of the host property, due to the position of the proposed extension and the more oblique viewing angle from the balcony. Occupiers using the garden of [address] Barn would be able to see the large opening window and balcony, which, as well as any direct overlooking, would result in a perception of being viewed from the balcony at first-floor level. This would therefore have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] Barn.

Although there would be no windows on the side elevation of the two-storey extension adjacent to [address] Barn, it would appear as a high domineering structure affecting the outlook from the rear of this property. Planning permission1, for alterations to [address] Barn, includes a new patio door on the rear elevation adjacent to the appeal proposal, and a single storey glazed link and garage conversion, with patio doors, which would look directly towards the proposed extension.

Furthermore, the two-storey extension would be located to the north-east of [address] Barn. Whilst the appellant considers that overshadowing would be limited due to the orientation of the sun, the proposed two-storey extension would reduce the level of morning sun to the rear of this property and the courtyard area, particularly at times of the year when the sun is set lower in the sky. Thus, resulting in an unacceptable loss of sunlight to this property and courtyard area.

The appellant argues that the proposal would protect the outlook of the adjacent property, [address] Barn, only affecting a functional space, used as a driveway. Whilst this may have been the situation previously, the current permission would suggest a reconfiguration of the living accommodation focusing on the rear of the house with large areas of glazing around the garden/courtyard. Instead, the outlook that the occupiers of [address] Barn would have expected when they were granted planning permission, would be severely impacted upon if the proposed two-storey extension was built. The height and extent of this along the boundary would result in it being overbearing and domineering to the occupiers of this property.

Therefore, I conclude the proposed two-storey extension would have an unacceptable harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] Barn, with particular reference to privacy, outlook and sunlight. The two-storey extension would not accord with the Ribble Valley Borough Council Core Strategy, 2014, Policy DMG1 requiring design to be sympathetic to existing and proposed land uses and not adversely affect the amenities of the surrounding area; and Policy DMH5 which requires residential extensions to accord with Policy DMG1.

The proposal includes the conversion and extension of the detached garage to create a granny annex. Although the Council have accepted that the principle 1 3/2021/1107 Proposed internal alterations, conversion of existing garage to residential use and glass link between the house and garage. [name] 2021. of the granny annex would accord with Policy DMH5, I am not satisfied from the evidence before me, that the Council has assessed this element of the proposal, including the addition of rear decking to the annex on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Nevertheless, whilst I have the power to issue a split decision on appeal, this is discretionary, and I am not obliged to do so. Moreover, there has been no request from the main parties to do so. Therefore, a split decision would not be appropriate in this case.

Details of a planning permission2 for a new access from the field to the rear of [address], were submitted with the appeal. This does, however, not affect my conclusions on this appeal.

For the reasons given above, considering the development plan as a whole and all relevant material considerations, the two-storey rear extension would have a harmful effect on the occupiers of [address] Barn. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.