Appeal 3284420

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

Located within a residential area characterised by open frontages, the appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling with a car port attached to the side elevation. The house types in the immediate vicinity are predominantly semi-detached dwellings with garages, with some of these properties having been extended or altered.

The proposed development would include the demolition of the existing conservatory followed by the erection of a two storey rear extension dropping down to a part single storey rear extension. The two storey element would extend to approximately two thirds of the width of the existing dwelling and include a large expanse of glazing at first floor level.

Although the development would not be visible from or have any impact on views from [address] itself, there would be views of the development from the rear of the property. In particular, the proposed development would be immediately visible from the top of the adjacent footpath and from the turning head located in the cul-de-sac to the rear of the property, as well as from [address] itself which rises up giving a clear view of the first floor of the rear elevation of the appeal property.

The large expanse of glazing and its arrangement would be at odds with the level of glazing and the general window layout of both the host property and surrounding properties. The design and layout of windows at properties in the locality are largely uniform in appearance and understated, and consequently the proposed extension and the expanse of glazing at first floor level would appear out of keeping within the wider street scene. As a result the development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area.

I do not consider that the size or width of the proposed development would be excessive or a disproportionate addition to the host dwelling, and therefore its size or width alone would not result in any harm being caused. However, whilst I have found in favour in respect of this element of the proposal, this does not outweigh the harm I have identified that would be caused to the character and appearance of the area.

I conclude that the development would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies S1 and EQ6 of the High Peak Local Plan (adopted 2016) (LP), and the High Peak Borough Council Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2005 (SPD). Amongst other things, these policies and the SPD seek to ensure that developments are well designed, protect and where possible enhance the environment, and contribute positively to an areas character and identity in terms of layout, appearance and materials.

The neighbour at [address] has raised concerns that the proposed development would result in a loss of privacy, both in relation to the rear garden and rear bedroom windows of the property.

Whilst the large expanse of glazing at first floor level of the proposed extension may increase the perception of overlooking and loss of privacy, given the orientation of the properties and the distance between them, I do not consider that the development would result in a significant loss of privacy and an unacceptable level of harm being caused to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 30.

As a result, I find no conflict with LP Policy EQ6 and the SPD, which amongst other things, seek to ensure developments achieve a satisfactory relationship with adjacent developments and does not cause unacceptable effects by reason of visual intrusion or overlooking.

[name] have found that the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], it would harm the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations which would outweigh this finding. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.