Appeal 3290857

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposed balcony on the living conditions of the occupiers of adjacent properties in respect of privacy.

The site comprises a bungalow near to one of two entrances to [address] from [address]. Islands of vegetation effectively create two lanes of carriageway into [address] at each entrance. The bungalow features a predominantly pitched and hipped roof and a small gabled element above a bay window. It also features an attached garage with a flat roof. There are many similar bungalows along [address] including the adjoining one at No 4. Although some of the bungalows appear to have been extended or altered, the street scene has a distinctly cohesive character. The appearance of the bungalow at No 2 contributes positively to the character of [address].

The bungalow is visible from [address] on entry from [address]. Even with the vegetation in the highway, one of its sides is visible from the carriageway and the footway above the boundary wall to [address].

Amongst other things, the scheme would involve the creation of a crown style roof and the replacement of an existing rear conservatory with a 4 metre deep extension. A significant proportion of the roof would be flat. These features and the resultant depth of the dwelling would be apparent from the highway. The extensive flat roof element would contrast poorly with the roof forms of the surrounding properties such that the resultant dwelling would appear incongruous next to No [address] scene. The cohesive character of [address] would be harmed. This is consistent with guidance in the Design of [name] and New Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which sets out that where large areas of flat roof between pitched roof areas are proposed there is a risk they may be out of character with a locality.

It has been put forward that the proposal is similar to approved development at Nos 46 and 61 Lois Drive1. Full details of the approved schemes have not been provided, but No 46 appears to feature a relatively new crown style roof and front facing dormer. In any case, Nos 46 and 61 are each sited within a row of properties and are relatively close to the dwellings adjacent to them. Nos 46 and 61 are not directly comparable with No 2 because its side is prominently positioned near the entrance to [address] and there is a comparatively large separation distance between its side and the rear elevation of [address].

It is advanced that the proposal would be compatible with the character and appearance of the area because of the site’s position near to [address], which features properties like Nos 41 and 43 that have a significant amount of development at roof level. However, the site has a stronger relationship with the properties in [address] because of its position behind the properties along [address] and due to the bungalow’s similarities with the other dwellings along [address]. Furthermore, the properties along [address] in the immediate vicinity of the site do not feature flat roof elements that are directly comparable to the one proposed.

The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It conflicts with Policy EN1 of the [name] and Policies Development Plan Document (DPD), which sets out that development should positively contribute to the character of areas.

The proposal includes the creation of a first floor balcony to the rear of No 2. The SPD sets out that the impacts on adjoining properties should be carefully considered in terms of overlooking.

Although the balcony would be recessed, shallow and serve a bedroom, it would nevertheless enable views of a significant proportion of the rear garden to [address]. There are roof dormers facing towards that garden at Nos 45 and [address]; however, these are small, offset and further from the garden than the proposed balcony. Furthermore, the design of the balcony would permit the occupiers to sit out on it or stand by its railing enabling for wide viewing angles. The impacts of the balcony would differ considerably from the neighbours’ roof dormers. Therefore, the balcony would result in a significant increase in overlooking of the rear garden of [address]. 1 Council references: 19/01682/HOU; 21/01131/HOU

Parts of the rear gardens at [address] and [address] would also be visible from the balcony. However, overlooking of these and the other nearby properties would not be excessive due to the position of the balcony and the neighbouring properties’ positions, orientations and boundary features.

The proposed balcony would result in a significant and unacceptable level of overlooking of the rear garden to [address] and thus harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of that property. It conflicts with DPD Policy EN1, which seeks to prevent significant harmful impacts to privacy.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. Material considerations do not outweigh the proposal’s conflict with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.