Appeal 3294326

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal was amended during the application process. As such, the Council determined the proposal based on the amended plans submitted and the description given in the banner heading above. For clarity, this is also the basis on which I have made my assessment.

The Council’s reason for refusal refers to No [address]. However, it is clear to me from the [name] that the concerns relate to No [address], and this has subsequently informed the following main issues.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], with particular reference to outlook and the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], with particular reference to overlooking of the rear garden.

No 27’s rear elevation faces toward the side of the appeal building and it has a small rear garden. As such, the appeal building’s upper section of its side wall and hipped roof are prominent features from No [address] above the boundary fence. Despite this, the existing hipped roof form, and its distinctly low height, moderate the effects of this close proximity.

Moreover, although the appeal building’s neighbouring property along [address] is larger, due to its distance from No 27, and the position of the appeal building in between, there remains an open quality to the rear of No 27.

The proposal would create a gable roof form which would significantly increase the amount of roof slope facing No 27. The pitch of the slope would run away from the boundary. However, given the particularly small garden of No [address] position of the appeal building to the garden, the increased massing would appear unduly oppressive, creating an unacceptable sense of enclosure.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 27 with particular reference to outlook. As such, I find conflict with the requirements of Policy ENV1 of the East Riding Local Plan Strategy Document (LPSD) (2016) and paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These seek, amongst other things, to ensure good standards of living conditions for existing occupants. No [address] (No 39)

No 39 has a long rear garden which is bordered by several neighbouring gardens, including at No 27, [address] and [address]. These dwellings all have upper floor windows facing at various angles to No 39’s garden. In this regard, a degree of overlooking in residential areas, such as this, is not unusual.

The proposal would result in another first floor window overlooking No 39’s garden at a relatively close distance. However, it would be positioned toward the upper section of the long rear garden, rather than the section nearer the neighbouring dwelling. Moreover, given the small size of the window, as it would serve a bedroom, and given the context of other residential properties having various degrees of overlooking, the extent of overlooking would not be significantly different to the existing situation.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 39 with particular reference to overlooking of the rear garden. As such, I find no conflict with the requirements of Policy ENV1 of the LPSD or paragraph 130 of the Framework.

The absence of harm in relation to other considerations, including shadowing effects are neutral matters that weigh neither for nor against the proposal.

The appellant has made changes to their scheme with the view to finding a solution. However, this is not a matter for my consideration in this appeal and I am only able to make my decision considering the plans that were before the Council when they made their decision.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.