Appeal 3270037

The appeal is dismissed.

On 20 July 2021, the Government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’). It replaces the previous version published in February 2019. The Framework represents the Government’s up-to-date planning policies for England and how they should be applied.

The circumstances of this appeal are such that it has not been necessary to seek comments from the parties on the revised Framework.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupants of [address] with regard to outlook and light.

The appeal property is a detached bungalow that includes roof level accommodation above the garage. It is set-back behind the buildings that front onto [address], along with a detached two-storey dwelling, [address] that sits to the north-west of the appeal property.

The existing detached dwelling adjacent to the site, [address], has a glazed conservatory to the side and windows in the rear elevation that appear to be habitable room windows. There is a low-level boundary treatment that separates the appeal property from this dwelling.

In a previous appeal1 I found that a similar proposed development would result in significant harm to the living conditions of the occupants of 127a Highgate 1 APP/W4705/D/20/3263005 Road with regard to outlook and light. Since this previous decision, the proposed development has been amended by dropping the eaves level of the part of the extension closest to [address]. This has resulted in a steeper pitch to the roof of this part of the extension from the previous scheme.

The proposed development results in the increase in height of the existing dwelling, including at the section of the dwelling closest to [address]. The increase in height overall is unchanged from the previous scheme. Despite the amendment referred to above, due to the size and scale of the proposed development, and the siting of the appeal property relative to [address] and its habitable room windows, the extension would dominate the outlook from the property and there would be an overbearing impact on the occupants to [address].

The appellant has submitted a [name] to consider the impact of the development in terms of levels of sunlight. Unlike the previous decision, the [name] now assesses the impact of the development at the opposing time of year. The study shows that there would be some overshadowing from the development in the morning time, but only a small impact at other times of the day. Taking into account the submitted [name], despite there being a small reduction, I do not consider that there would be an unreasonable impact on light levels to [address].

I therefore conclude that although there would be a small reduction in the harmful impact of the development from that considered in the previous appeal, the proposed development would nonetheless result in significant harm to the living conditions of occupants of [address] with regard to outlook. It would be contrary to Policy DS5 of the Bradford Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2017) which requires, amongst other things, that development should not harm the amenity of existing residents.

The proposal would also be contrary to guidance contained in the Householder Supplementary Planning Document (2012) which outlines, amongst other things, that extensions should not over dominate or seriously damage outlook for any neighbours’ property.

I note that letters of support were received to the planning application. Any suggestion that the development would enhance the property and that it does not cause harm in terms of overlooking are not pertinent to the main issue and do not override the harm I have identified.

The appellant refers to the planning permission that was granted to construct [address], and I have been provided with a copy of the decision notice and approved plan. The appellant suggests that the previous decision granted to construct [address] was perhaps misjudged and that the influence of the proposed extension is not materially different to that of the construction of [address] on the appeal property.

The merits of that decision are not before me. Even were I to share the appellants view, it does not justify allowing the harm to occur that I have identified.

For the reasons set out above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.