Appeal 3307222

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant expressed concern about which plans the Council based their decision on. However, it has subsequently been confirmed by the appellant that they are satisfied the Council appear to have based their decision on the amended plans submitted during the planning application process. As such, I have no reason not to proceed to determine the appeal and have done so on the basis of those amended plans as listed on the Council’s decision notice.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of: • [address] with regard to privacy and outlook; and • [address] with regard to daylight/sunlight.

The appeal property is located within a residential area which has a dense built form. Dwellings are in close proximity to one another, with a number of ground floor extensions within reasonably short rear gardens. [address] comprises two storey semi-detached properties. [address], to the rear, comprises bungalows.

There is dispute regarding the separation distance between the appeal property and [address]. Irrespective of the precise measurements, the proposal would bring development closer to the boundary with no 32 and the first-floor extension would afford elevated views at close range into the property and garden, to the detriment of the privacy of these occupiers. The appellant suggests that the rear windows could be obscure glazed, however one of the proposed windows would serve a bedroom which would be single aspect. As such, I cannot be satisfied that obscure glazed windows would be acceptable with regard to outlook and would not be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of the appeal site. Accordingly, this is a concern that could not be rectified by the imposition of a condition.

Given the height difference between the properties and the dense built form of the locality, the proposed extension at first-floor level to no 32 would be a dominant and oppressive feature. It would have an overbearing effect upon outlook from both the back garden and the rear facing rooms of this neighbour.

The rear boundary fence would not mitigate the elevated views at the first-floor level or screen the proposed extension. Even if the rear facing rooms at no 32 are not habitable rooms, the proposal would be detrimental to the levels of privacy and outlook that could reasonably be expected in a private garden.

While it has been suggested that a ’45 degree rule’ is complied with in respect of the relationship to neighbouring property, neither party has provided substantive evidence in relation to the effect of the proposal on daylight/sunlight levels at [address]. However, given the dense built form of the area and that the rear elevation is southeast facing, the introduction of an extension of this size and location at first floor level would be likely to have a detrimental effect on daylight/sunlight levels in both the garden and property at no 33.

While there were no objections from neighbouring occupiers to the scheme, this is not a reason in itself to allow harmful development. The proposed hipped pitched roof reduces the bulk of the proposal, and the retained side alleyway contributes to an element of open character, but these features would not minimise the overall dominance of the proposed extension or sufficiently mitigate the shading effect of the proposal.

As such, the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers at [address] with regard to privacy and outlook, and the occupiers of [address] with regard to daylight/sunlight. This is in conflict with Policy SD4 of the Redcar & Cleveland Local Plan (2018) which requires development to not have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of occupiers of existing buildings.

Reference is made to the separation distance to [address] to the front of the property. The reason for this is unclear given the Council’s concerns relate to [address] to the rear. Nonetheless, any policy compliance in this regard would be a neutral factor, as is a lack of harm in respect of the character and appearance of the area and in highways terms.

I note that a side window was removed from the proposal during the planning application process and the Council did not find any significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with regard to privacy, to which I have no reason to disagree.

The appellant has indicated that the proposal would maximise the space available in the appeal property and incorporate space for disabled use. Disability is a protected characteristic and therefore I have had due regard to the three aims of the Public Sector Equality Duty set out in the Equality Act 2010, including removing or minimising disadvantages that may be suffered by this group. However, there is no particular evidence that people sharing the protected characteristic would be occupying the property, nor that the space proposed is required to address any particular need. Moreover, it has not been shown that the appeal scheme is the only option available to achieve the appellant’s desired aims. Therefore, I conclude that the weight that I attach to this matter is limited in this case.

My above findings bring the proposal into conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations that have been shown to have sufficient weight to warrant a decision otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.