Appeal 3292760

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the [address] street scene along with its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address] with particular regard to outlook and access to natural light.

The appeal relates to semi-detached property. It is located within a road which is home to a mix of bungalows and dwellings in a variety of styles; with some having being extended to the side.

The proposal seeks to add a two storey side extension. The main body of the extension would be slightly recessed from the principal elevation of the host dwelling and the ridge would be lower which would ensure a degree of subservience. The extension would repeat the existing roof form, it would be in scale and proportion with the host dwelling and it would be finished in matching external materials.

The proposed extension would be set some 300mm off the boundary with the adjacent property, No. [address], which is a traditional bungalow. This bungalow is set off the boundary by the width of its driveway. Whilst the extension would bring two storey built form closer to the adjacent bungalow, given the arrangement I have described, and bearing in mind the varied distances between dwellings within the existing street scene, I am satisfied that a reasonable degree of separation would exist between the two dwellings.

For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the proposed extension would sit comfortably within the street scene and it would not appear incongruous. In such terms, I find no conflict with policy SDC1 of the adopted Rugby Local Plan (LP) or the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document titled ‘[name] and Construction’ (SPD) which promote high quality design that responds to its surroundings.

The adjacent bungalow at No. [address] has a number of openings along its side elevation facing the appeal property, including a window towards the rear section which I understand serves a kitchen. The proposal would effectively bring the side elevation of the host dwelling much closer to the side elevation of this bungalow. Whilst the section of the proposed extension which would be closest to the kitchen window of No. 51 would be single storey, it would be much taller than the existing fence which runs along the shared boundary. Although the proposed extension would be visually acceptable when seen from the street scene, I consider that it would have an overbearing and oppressive effect for the occupiers of No. [address], particularly when viewed from their kitchen.

Given the south facing aspect of the affected side elevation of No. 51, I agree with the Appellant that the appeal dwelling already casts a large degree of shadow over this property for prolonged periods of the day. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the two storey addition would only worsen the situation and a further reduction in the levels of natural light available to this dwelling would be unacceptable. I note the Appellant’s offer to replace the obscure glazing in the doors located on the side elevation of No. 51 with clear glazing, but this would not adequately mitigate the additional harm.

I therefore find that the proposed extension would harm the outlook from No. [address] and it would further reduce the levels of natural light available to its occupiers at certain times of the day. In this particular regard, the proposal conflicts with policy SDC1 of the LP and the SPD, which also seek to safeguard adequate living conditions for occupiers of neighbouring dwellings.

The Appellant explains that additional space is required to meet the needs of a growing family and the specific needs of one of the children, along with the fact that extending would be cheaper than moving. [name] sympathise with these personal circumstances, the extension is likely to remain long after they cease to be a material consideration. Furthermore, in the absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, it seems to me that this may not be the only option for creating additional habitable space.

I conclude that although the proposed extension would not harm the character and appearance of the street scene, it would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address]. The arguments advanced by the Appellant do not outweigh this harm and the associated policy conflict therefore the appeal does not succeed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR