Appeal 3289803

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The appeal site comprises a two storey semi-detached property which lies in a residential area of similar properties, although the property is extended with a hip to gable roof extension and rear facing dormer window. At the rear of the ground floor there is a flat roof rear extension that provides a dining room. It is proposed to enlarge this by adding a single storey kitchen a further 2.8m in length.

In considering the main issues I have had regard to the Council’s Local Plan Part 2 – Development Management Policies - Householder Development Policies as set out in Policy DMHD 1.

In this case the proposed extension is at the rear of the property and will not be seen in the public realm of the street scene. Although mainly flat roofed the structure would not be of such a scale that it would be harmful to the architecture of the host dwelling or to the hinterland of private rear gardens. At a total length of 5.3m there would be a minor conflict with part B (i), as related to a plot width greater than 5m, but this mathematical limitation should not be applied too strictly if all other aspects of the scheme were acceptable. In the circumstances of this case I do not regard this breach to be critical in visual terms.

The concern here is with the relationship with the adjoining property of No. 20. This has main windows to a habitable room looking along the party boundary. Although there is a boundary fence alongside the existing extension and some small shrubs further along the boundary, I am concerned that the overall length of the addition and its position almost on the party boundary would make the outlook and aspect from the main living room of No.20 very enclosed. In the absence of detailed plans of the relationship with No.20, it appeared to me at the visit that the length of the total extension proposed would breach the ‘45-degree Rule’, as set out in paragraph A1.24 of the Policy. Although only a general ‘rule of thumb’, it gives a reasonable indication of where a scale of extension would be likely to materially harm the outlook and amenity of neighbours.

In this case I find that the proposal would be likely to result in a material loss of outlook and aspect for the occupiers of this neighbouring property and would harm their living conditions. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy DMHD1 and DMHB 11(B) concerning the adverse impact on the amenity and daylight of adjacent properties.

This conflict with the development plan and the local harm identified has to be balanced with other considerations. However, none of these raised, including the general presumption in favour of sustainable development, outweigh this conflict and this indicates that the appeal should not be allowed.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.