Appeal 3297201

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook.

The appeal property is a mid-terrace two storey dwelling. It is set back from the road behind a short garden area and has a long narrow garden to the rear. The dwelling has been extended to the rear at ground floor level.

It is located in a residential area characterised by the presence of two storey terraced dwellings with short gardens to the front and long gardens to the rear.

During my site visit, I observed that many houses in the area have been altered and/or extended, including many ground floor rear extensions. As noted above, the appeal property itself has a single storey extension to the rear.

It is proposed to extend further to the rear at ground floor level and to “wrap” the proposed extension around the existing rear extension in an L-shape. Consequently, the proposal would project a long way to the rear of the host property whilst also filling a gap to the boundary with Number [address].

The proposal would be wide and tall and would combine with the existing extension to result in a large and bulky extension of excessive length, projecting considerably further to the rear than neighbouring extensions.

Consequently, the proposed development would fail to appear subordinate to the host dwelling but would instead appear as an unduly dominant addition, out of character with its surroundings.

Taking this into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policies CS2 and CS15 of the Core Strategy1; to Policies DM4 and DM29 of the Local Plan DMP2; and to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document “[name]. Alterations” (2010), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Living conditions 10.The proposal would reach the shared boundary with No 56 and having regard to the information set out above, it would extend along that boundary for a considerable distance. The proposed height of the extension would result in the proposal appearing to “loom” over the rear of No 56, immediately adjacent to and well above the already tall boundary fence, for some distance. 11.I find that this would result in an undue sense of enclosure and lead to an oppressive outlook from No 56’s ground floor rear windows. The immediacy and height of the proposal would, in combination with its excessive length, result in it appearing overbearing and unduly dominating the rear outlook from No 56. 12.Consequently, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], with regards to outlook, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy CS13 of the [name]; to Policy DM32 of the Local Plan DMP; and to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document “[name]. Alterations” (2010), which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.