Appeal 3272882

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on (i) the character and appearance of the area; and (ii) the living conditions of occupants of [address].

The appeal site lies within a predominantly residential area, characterised by varying designs of properties which fluctuate in terms of scale.

The proposed development would involve a first floor extension projecting over an existing ground floor extension to No. 51. The proposed development would be visible from neighbouring properties and the surrounding area however whilst substantial the proposed development in the context of the area would not be dominant, nor be overdevelopment of the property.

The development would significantly alter the appearance of No. 51, which would imbalance the existing built form to that of No. 52. Notwithstanding this given that many of the properties in the area vary in terms of design to adjoining properties the proposed development would not be incongruous to the streetscene.

I find that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. There is no conflict with Policy AD1(a) of the Preston Local Plan 2012-26, Site Allocations and Development Management Policies (the Allocations & Development Management Plan), Policies D13 and H8 of the Preston Local Plan (2004) (the Local Plan) which seek to ensure that amongst other things developments respect the existing property and surrounding area. There is also no conflict with the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2013) (the SPD).

The existing property projects forward of the adjoining property No. 50, there is already a degree of overshadowing, which can be seen from the photographs provided by the Appellant. Notwithstanding this due to the proposed position and scale of the proposed development to that of the adjoining property and its sole window at ground floor overshadowing would be exacerbated. Due to the expanse of built form the proposed development would be visually dominant and overbearing to the occupiers of the adjacent property.

I conclude that the proposed development would harm living conditions of occupants of No. [address]. There would be conflict with Policy AD1(a) of the Allocations & Development Management Plan, Policies D13 and H8 of the Local Plan which seeks amongst other things to protect the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties. There is also conflict with the SPD.

The appellant has highlighted that the proposed development is required due to the personal circumstances. However, limited information has been provided to confirm that an alternative development could not be provided to meet the needs of the occupants, I therefore give this limited weight.

[name] have concluded that the proposed development does not harm the character and appearance of the area, this does not outweigh the harm I have identified in terms of the living conditions of occupants of No. [address].

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.