The inspector concluded the rear extension which projected to the boundary, providing only for a passageway, did not leave adequate amenity space to serve two flats. The extension was also visible to the public from a rear alleyway and harmed the character of the area.
The loss of family accommodation was an issue, and despite the appellant’s claims that location and layout made the property uneconomical to rent to a family, the inspector did not find any justification to overturn core strategy policy or support accommodation for students and young professionals. The appellant also claimed a large housing association family would occupy the dwelling if it reverted to a single dwelling and this would cause more harm from noise and disturbance, but again the inspector did not agree. Taking account also of the likelihood of additional on-street parking pressure despite a sustainable location close to a district centre, the inspector concluded the intensified residential use was overdevelopment and went on to dismiss the appeal.
Inspector: A U Ghafoor; Written representations