Appeal 3301116

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the living conditions of the occupants of No. [address] with particular regard to outlook; and • the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property and No. [address] are located behind the properties fronting [address], on land to the rear of Nos 20 and 22A, accessed by a shared driveway situated between these properties.

The proposal would be positioned close to the rear boundary of No. 22A. Even if the rear garden of No. 22A is larger and deeper than some other gardens located nearby, it is shallow. It is already largely surrounded by development, with the current outlook consisting of the built form of Nos 22 and [site address] , as well as what appeared to be a larger non-residential building, interspersed with greenery from neighbouring gardens. Despite this, adequate gaps between the neighbouring built forms and the garden, together with the greenery, means the garden does not feel hemmed in and the existing buildings are not domineering.

The proposal would fill part of the gap between the rear garden of No. 22A and the appeal property. Given its proximity to the garden boundary, its significant height at over 5 metres, and expansive roof profile, and despite it being positioned at an angle, it would be visually intrusive and overbearing from the rear aspect of the house, particularly the garden space. It would result in a loss of outlook and create an increased sense of enclosure which would feel oppressive and would harm the living conditions of the occupants of No 22A. As such it would conflict with the aims of policies GC3, H13 and H14 of the Chiltern District Local Plan (1997) and the [name] and Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document (2013). These seek, amongst other things, to protect the living conditions of the occupants of existing adjoining and neighbouring properties, including against an overbearing appearance.

The area is made up predominantly of 1 and 2 storey detached houses set back from the road on moderate to large plots with front and rear gardens. They vary in their style, form, features and materials. Together, the set back, moderate scale of development, large plots, grass verges and lawned front gardens, as well as hedges and shrubs that are commonly used as front boundary treatments, give the area a pleasant spacious and green character.

Despite the appeal property and No 22 being set behind the houses on [address], they share similar characteristics to those fronting it. They have generous plots with large rear gardens, as well as ample parking and lawned areas to the front, in keeping with the spacious and green character of the area. However, in contrast to most of the other houses, they have a L-shaped form, which means that a significant section of the appeal property already projects forward of the principal elevation.

It may be that the proposal would be relatively large in terms of an outbuilding, particularly its height and roof form, and it would be positioned to the front of the existing house, both which conflict with the detailed guidance set out in the Council’s Residential Extensions and Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document (2013) (SPD). However, the appeal property is a substantial 5-bedroom house and, although the proposal would not be directly linked, its proximity to the existing house would make it appear more as an extension to the existing L-shaped building form than an outbuilding set forward of the principal elevation. For these reasons and despite the difference in roof form, the proposal would appear subservient to the host dwelling, which would accord with the overarching principle of the SPD, and would also retain the established pattern of development. Furthermore, given the position of the appeal property, behind the properties fronting [address], it is not readily visible from the road and the proposal would be even less so meaning its effect on the wider area would be limited.

Any harm to the openness of the plot would also be limited. Notwithstanding the proposal’s proximity to the rear boundary of No. 22A, it would only take up a modest amount of space and would largely cover an area currently used for parking, which would be replaced by a garage providing the same use. Overall, the plot would remain generous with front and rear gardens, including some soft landscaping to the front of the house, which would retain the spacious and green character of the area.

Accordingly, the proposal would accord with the aims of policies GC1, H13 (ii), H15 and H20 of the Chiltern District Local Plan (1997), Policy CS20 of the [name] for Chiltern District (2011) and the [name] and Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document (2013). These seek, amongst other things, to deliver a high standard of design that protects the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and area.

Overall, while I find the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area, this absence of harm does neither outweigh nor address the harm to the living conditions of occupants of No [address]. The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan, read as a whole.

It has been put to me that the proposed development would not result in a loss of privacy to neighbouring properties and there would be no impact on existing parking arrangements. However, these matters neither outweigh the harm I have identified nor provide justification for development that conflicts with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.