Appeal 3281386

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issue in this appeal to be the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of the occupiers of no’s.14 and [address] with particular regard to overlooking and overbearing.

The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling located on a cul-de-sac on a plot which widens from front to back. The dwelling is orientated with its gable facing the front and rear of the plot. It has a single storey rear extension with a single pitched roof and the proposed development would introduce a first floor above this. The proposed extension would be of dual pitch to match the existing gable, providing two windows to this elevation, serving the proposed bedroom.

The appeal site shares its rear boundary with dwellings on [address] with a close-board fence serving as the rear boundary treatment. The properties on Larchfield and [address] have a back to back relationship with the appeal site boundary being shared with numbers 14 and [address].

The Council state that the separation distance between first floor rear elevations from the appeal site proposal and the dwellings at [address] would be approximately 17m at its closest point as a result of the development. At two storeys high and with the gable end emphasising the height of the development, the proposal would consequently create a dominant and oppressive feature which would have an overbearing effect upon outlook from both the rear garden and rear facing habitable rooms of no’s 14 and 16.

I was also able to see that there is a two storey extension at no. 16, however the circumstances in each proposal are likely to be different, and in any event the fact that apparently similar extensions may have been permitted is not a reason, on its own, to allow unacceptable development. I have considered this appeal on its own merits and concluded that it would cause harm for the reasons set out above.

[name] acknowledge that there appeal site may be set at a slight angle to the neighbouring properties to the rear, the overall effect is that of dwellings facing each other and I was able to see at my site visit that there is already some element of overlooking between properties here. The proposed development would introduce two windows at first floor which would be brought closer to the boundary with the properties to the rear. Through the siting and elevated position, the proposed extension would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking of the garden of no’s 14 and [address]. Due to the rear gardens of other properties being further away from the appeal property, I find that the effect on those properties would not be unacceptable.

I therefore conclude that the proposed extension would cause significant harm to the living conditions of occupants of [address] with regard to overbearing and overlooking. It would be contrary to Policy CS19 of the Core Strategy1 which expects good design, including (amongst other things) that development does not cause unacceptable effects by visual intrusion or overlooking and Policy SP15 of the Development Plan Document2 which also expects protection of neighbouring amenity and occupiers.

Reference has been made to permission that was granted in [name] 3 for a two storey extension that would be built right up to the boundary of an existing property and that the extension would take all the light from the property. The circumstances in each proposal are likely to be different, and in any event the fact that apparently similar development has been granted permission is not a reason, on its own, to allow unacceptable development. I have considered this appeal proposal on its own merits and concluded that it would cause harm for the reasons set out above.

The appellant has expressed concerns regarding communication with the Council during the application determination process. Whilst this may have caused the appellant some concern, I find nothing to suggest that a decision was not reached on the basis of the merits of the proposal, as submitted by the applicant.

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