Appeal 3283125

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 15 and [address] with particular regards to outlook.

The appeal relates to a large detached dwelling which sits broadly at right angles to the nearest of the dwellings of [address]. The proposal seeks to add a first floor extension above part of the attached garage of the appeal dwelling. The garage sits very close to the side boundary, which is also the rear boundary of Nos. 15 and [address].

The proposed first floor extension would be recessed from the front elevation of the host dwelling, it would have a lower ridge and it would be finished in matching external materials. It would also see the removal of two existing first floor windows to the side elevation which the floor plans indicate are a secondary window to a bedroom and a landing window. However, the proposed extension would sit very close to the boundary with the rear of Nos. 15 and [address] and these properties have very shallow rear gardens.

According to the figures provided by the Council, which are not disputed by the Appellant, the proposed first floor addition would sit just over 7 metres or so from the windows serving the habitable rooms at the rear of these adjacent properties. This falls some way short of the 12 metre separation distance recommended by the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate titled ‘[name] (SPD) where a window to a habitable room faces a blank elevation.

To my mind, the effect of the large expanse of brickwork of the extension at first floor level would be unduly oppressive and would unacceptably reduce the quality of the outlook from the rooms at the rear of Nos. 15 and [address]. In addition, the overall scale and proximity of the proposed first floor addition would have a very dominant effect on the occupiers of these dwellings when enjoying their relatively shallow private rear amenity spaces.

In such terms, the proposal conflicts with policy Env7 of the adopted [name], policy DM29 of the adopted Hyndburn Development Management Development Plan Document and the SPD, which collectively promote high quality design that safeguards appropriate standards of residential amenity.

I am mindful that the Appellant received positive pre-application advice from the Council. Whilst pre-application advice should give potential applicants a degree of certainty moving forward, it is not binding on the Council. Furthermore, I have considered the proposal on its merits as I see it.

I appreciate the extension would provide additional space for the Appellant’s domestic needs. However, there is no evidence before me that suggests the extension proposed is the only viable option for providing additional accommodation. In any case, it does not justify a harmful form of development.

Finally, the Appellant refers to a range of extensions within the local area. [name] do not know the precise planning circumstances behind the examples highlighted, none that I saw had a directly comparable relationship with adjacent dwellings. Moreover, as I have already explained, I have determined the appeal proposal on its individual merits, taking into account the particular relationship with neighbouring dwellings.

I conclude that the proposed extension would unacceptably harm the outlook from Nos. 15 and [address], contrary to the development plan policies and design guidance referred to above. The arguments advanced by the Appellant do not outweigh this harm and policy conflict therefore the appeal does not succeed.