Appeal 3289622

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant submitted new evidence with the appeal relating to amendments. Guidance1 is clear that if an applicant thinks that amending their application proposals will overcome the Council’s reasons for refusal they should normally make a fresh planning application. The Council should be open to discussions on whether it is likely to view an amended scheme favourably. Altogether, I have determined the appeal based on the proposal that was put before the Council.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the: (a) character and appearance of the area; and (b) living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in relation to privacy.

The site is located at [site address] which is a detached two storey dwelling at the end of a small cul-de-sac. The site, cul-de-sac and surrounding development appear similar in age, constructed as a cohesive residential estate2. There is varied use of dwelling types and styles throughout the estate, such as detached and semi-detached dwellings, and small terraces. Furthermore, there is varied use of external materials, such as brick and render. Altogether, this makes for interesting and engaging street scenes. 1 Procedural Guide: Planning Appeals – England, [name]. 2 Village Design Statement [site address] GU24 2016

Whilst variation exists, there are clearly identified character areas with features of importance. [address] is identified as being within an area of small houses, where open-plan gardens are noted as minimising the effect of higher densities, whilst the roof types are of gable design3.

The proposal would introduce a two storey extension at the side and front elevations of the dwelling. Whilst the extension may be limited in depth, its height and extent across two elevations would have a material effect on the dwelling’s scale relative to the plot size.

Consequently, the proposal would visually enlarge the dwelling and encroach the openness of the plot. It would also introduce an incongruous, hipped roof design where gables are prominent. Altogether, it would erode the character and appearance of the dwelling and contribution it makes to [address].

Whilst the site is located within a small cul-de-sac, views are still available from the roundabout at [address] and the entrance to the cul-de-sac. Consequently, the siting of the proposal provides little mitigation.

Overall, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and conflict with Policy DM9 of the [name] and Development Management Policies 2012, Principles 10.1 and 10.2 of the [name] 2017, and Guidelines 1, 2 and 5 of the [site address] Village Design Statement 2016.

The appellant concedes that the window placement could affect the privacy of neighbouring occupiers and that they would be willing to change the window placement in an effort to mitigate harmful effects. Consequently, it is no longer a matter in dispute between the parties.

In this context, the proposal would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers in relation to privacy by reason of overlooking from the window placement in the side elevation, which sits at first floor level and in close proximity to the neighbouring dwelling.

Overall, the proposal would conflict with Policy DM9 of the [name] and Development Management Policies 2012, and Principle 10.1 of the [name] 2017.

[name] note the appellant’s statements about the Council’s administration of the application, it is not a matter for me to deal with under the appeal. Furthermore, whilst I also not the appellant’s statements about parking, this matter has not been determinative under the main issues.

For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.