Appeal 3300761

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a replacement porch, single storey rear and two storey side extensions and alterations to all windows on front elevation at [site address] , Hampshire, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 22/00086/HOU, dated 13 January 2022, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

I have utilised the Council’s description of the proposal used in its decision notice rather that in the original application form, since I note that this amended description was agreed between the parties.

An assessment is contained in the officer report as to the design and appearance of the proposals. The report says: There are a variety of house styles and materials in the immediate vicinity of the application site. In this context, the changes to the external appearance of the dwelling would be acceptable. The extensions would appear visually comfortable against the appearance of the original building and the proposal would be considered to be an appropriate form of development in design terms.

I have no reason to disagree with this assessment.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the residents of [address] with specific regard to visual impact.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling set within a relatively modern residential estate. It stands alongside [address]. The Council’s concern is that the proposed two-storey extension would be built so close to the common boundary separating the properties that it would be perceived as having an ‘overbearing and oppressive impact on the outlook’ when viewed from the ground floor side window of [address] and its side door.

During my site visit I was allowed entry into [address] and its garden. I saw that its integral garage had recently been converted, partly into a store and partly into living accommodation. The living accommodation was served by two windows - one facing southwards over the rear garden, and one facing towards the appeal property.

It struck me that the former served as the principal window for the room whilst the side window was secondary in its function. Whilst the proposed extension would be seen from the side window, I do not share the Council’s view that it would have an oppressive effect on residents using the room, in particular given that the main and pleasant outlook southwards from the room would remain unimpaired. Moreover, the current outlook from both the side door and window of No 10 is limited, being directed towards the appeal property’s side elevation.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not materially harm the living conditions currently enjoyed by the residents of [address]. Accordingly, I find no conflict with those provisions of policy NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy and Sites) 2032 or policy GEN1 of the Hart Local Plan(Replacement) 1996-2006, requiring new development to be sensitive to its surroundings causing no material loss of amenity to adjoining residential uses.

In the interests of visual amenity, I shall impose the Council’s suggested condition in respect of external materials.

It is also necessary, in the interests of certainty that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

I have taken account of all other matters raised in the representations including that the Hook Parish Council raised no objection, and the letter of support submitted for the appeal by the residents of [address]. Whilst the latter has been noted, it has not proved decisive in my decision which is based, as required, on the planning merits of the proposal. No other matter raised outweighs those considerations which led me to my conclusions.