Appeal 3287204

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council considers that the proposal accords with the limitations for extensions set out in [name].1 of Class A to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). There is no evidence before me to the contrary. The provisions of [name].4 require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development solely based on its impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. My determination of this appeal has been made in the same manner. Following the Council’s consultation, there was an objection which triggered the need for prior approval.

The Council has described the development as ‘Erection of a single storey rear extension. (Extends 4.5m from the original dwelling, 3.8m in height and 2.8m to the eaves)’. I note that the appellant has also utilised this description on their appeal form. I consider that this revision provides a succinct and accurate description of the proposal and I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis.

In light of the above, the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of no. [address] having regard to matters of outlook.

The appeal property is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling located within a predominately residential area. It has an existing single storey rear extension and a single storey detached outbuilding in its back garden. The adjoining property, no. 62, also has a single storey rear extension and detached outbuilding in its rear garden. Both of these rear extensions are set back from the shared boundary between the two neighbouring properties. The proposal would replace the existing rear extension with one that would be much wider and higher than it. This extension would also be relatively close to the shared boundary with no. 62. No. 62 also has a large window on its ground floor rear elevation which serves a habitable room, and this is also located near to the shared boundary. The single storey rear extension at no. 62 is on the other side of this window.

Consequently, given its size, scale, massing, and location I consider that the proposal would lead to a ‘tunnelling’ effect thereby creating a great sense of enclosure for the occupiers of this room. Likewise, from this vantage point it would also appear visually dominant and overbearing thereby reducing the outlook from this room by an unacceptable degree. It would therefore have a significant adverse impact in these regards. I also consider that the resulting outlook the neighbouring occupiers would have ‘down their own rear garden’ would neither be sufficiently open nor unobstructed as to overcome or mitigate the overall impact that the proposal would have.

I note that revisions were made to the appeal scheme to reduce its size in comparison to the previously refused scheme (Ref. 21/01533/PRI). However, even so, for the reasons set out above the proposal would have a detrimental impact, nonetheless.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of no. [address] having regard to matters of outlook. Accordingly, it would fail to meet the relevant requirements of policy BH1 of the adopted [name] and Development Plan as supported by the adopted Development Management Supplementary Planning Document.

In support of the proposal the appellant has cited positive pre-application advice that was given by the Council. However, this is not binding, and it is clearly unfortunate if proposals are adjusted to suit but then the final outcome is an adverse one. Nevertheless, at appeal the proposal is considered afresh. As a consequence, the positive feedback given on that scheme does not warrant allowing the appeal scheme before me.

In his statement the appellant has referred to a shortfall in the supply of housing in the area. However, I have no substantive evidence before me to support this. In any event as the proposal is for an extension to an existing dwelling it would not lead to a net increase in the supply of housing in the area. As a result, I afford this matter little weight.

The appellant has also cited potential social and economic benefits arising from the proposal because he and his family have moved to the area and settled into community life in the village. However, it is not clear how any of these benefits would be newly provided because of the proposal as they would likely already have been bestowed on the locality when the appellant and his family originally moved into the appeal property. As a result, I afford this matter little weight.

I also note the appellant’s point that the proposal would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the area. However, this is not of sufficient weight to overcome or outweigh the harm I have identified above.

A concern has been raised by interested parties in relation to loss of daylight and sunlight. However, as the Council has not raised any concern in relation to this matter and I am dismissing the appeal on other substantive grounds I have not considered this matter further.

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