Appeal 3272486

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant states that the application relating to this appeal was submitted following an unsuccessful appeal against an enforcement notice1.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook and daylight.

The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling. It is located within a residential area characterised by the presence of a wide range of dwelling types, including detached, semi-detached and terraced houses of one to two stories in height.

Houses in the area tend to be set back from the street behind short gardens and/or parking areas, with longer gardens to the rear. The set-back from the street combined with the presence of street trees provides for a sense of spaciousness and greenery.

The appeal property forms one of a pair of modern dwellings. It is set back behind a paved parking area. There is a narrow gap to the side of the property, 1 [name] ref: E0495/19; Appeal ref: APP/W5780/C/19/3242511. between it and Number [address], and this provides an access to No 27’s rear garden.

The front elevation of the appeal property is set back from that of No 29 and its rear elevation projects well to the rear of No 29’s rear elevation at two storey height.

During my site visit, I observed that the height and depth of the rear projection of the appeal property combined with its very close proximity to No 29, results in an awkward relationship between the two dwellings, such that the side elevation of the appeal property “looms above” and appears to dominate the outlook from both the ground floor and the nearest rear facing bedroom window of No 29 to an overbearing degree. This results in a considerable sense of enclosure to the rear of No 29 at both ground and first floor level.

Whilst the proposed development would slightly reduce the rear projection of the appeal property above the ground floor at its rear corner closest to No 29, the changes proposed would not amount to something so great as to significantly reduce the overbearing impact of the appeal property on the outlook from the rear of this immediately neighbouring property. When seen from the rear of No 29, the appeal property would still result in an unduly dominant and overbearing form of development. 10.Further to the above, I observed during my site visit that the appeal property appears to impinge upon the amount of daylight reaching the rear of No 29 and there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposed development would result in any significant improvements in this regard. 11.Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] with regards to outlook and daylight, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Local Plan2 policies LP26 and LP30; and to the Council’s Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (2019), which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.