Appeal 3303527

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address], with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site (No.[address]) is a detached, two-storey dwelling with a hipped roof within a predominantly residential area.

No.[address] is to the north of the appeal site, with rear windows facing out towards the side elevation of the appeal dwelling. There is a short rear garden separating the rear windows in No.6 and the side elevation of No.4, which provides garden space for No.6.

The appellant states that there is a dental surgery currently in place at No.6. While there appears to be historic use of No.6 as a dental surgery, my site observations indicate that use seems to have now lapsed, with the building appearing to be residential in nature at the time of my visit.

The appeal scheme is for a loft conversion to provide an extra bedroom with ensuite and dressing area. Although the scheme would not bring the built form closer to No.6 than the existing property, and the ridge height of the appeal dwelling would remain unaltered, the height of the side flank wall facing No.6 would be increased significantly. This would result in a tall, blank wall on the party boundary with No.6, in close proximity to its rear facing windows, which would be dominant, overbearing and intrusive in the outlook from them. The extended dwelling would make the rooms that these windows serve less pleasant to spend time in.

The appeal scheme’s use of a half-hipped design, the retention of sufficient levels of daylight and the size and layout of the garden at No.6 do not alter my

I therefore conclude that the scheme would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address], with particular regard to outlook. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy 72 of the [site address] District Local Plan1, which seeks to protect the amenity of adjoining properties. It would also conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to achieve a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The appeal property is located within the [site address] Conservation Area (CA). The CA covers a wide area and within the vicinity of the appeal site the CA is residential and commercial in character with a mix of architectural designs, materials and roof forms. In this context and having regard to my duty under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the proposal’s design and materials would be proportionate and in keeping with the existing dwelling. The appeal scheme would not negatively impact on the character and appearance of the host building or local area. The character and appearance of the CA as a whole would be preserved.

For the above reasons, and notwithstanding my findings in respect of the CA, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.