Appeal 3310082

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted two additional plans with the appeal, drawings STWNNELS_0001 A111 & STWNNELS_0001 A110. The Council have advised that these plans were not submitted with the planning application and as such were not considered by the Council when they made their decision.

In considering whether to accept the amended plans, I have had regard to the ‘[name]’1. As a Householder Appeal, where there is no opportunity to respond to information submitted at appeal, the Council and interested parties have, therefore, not been able to comment on the additional plans. In the interests of natural justice, I have therefore based my decision on the plans which were submitted to, and considered by the Council.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] (No.127), with particular regard to daylight, sunlight and outlook.

The appeal site is a detached house positioned on the corner of [address] and [address]. It faces [address] with a single storey gable end section on the side closest to [address]. The neighbouring property at No.127 is sited directly behind the appeal site, fronting [address]. No.127 has windows in the gable end facing towards the appeal site, two at ground floor and one at first floor. Two of these windows serve habitable rooms, one on the ground floor and one at first floor. 1 [1] Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [JPL, 1982, P37]

The Newark & Sherwood Local Development Framework, Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document, adopted 2014, (SPD) provides guidance to support the policies within the development plan. The Council have quoted paragraph 8.4. However, paragraph 8.4 relates to rear extensions whereas the appeal proposal is for a first-floor side extension. I have therefore considered paragraphs 7.7 to 7.10 and 7.13 to 7.16 as the most relevant guidance for the determination of the appeal.

At the time of my visit, I saw that the first-floor window at No.127 was partly in the shade. However, the shadow cast on the gable end of No.127 included the chimney of the appeal property. The chimney is sited on the opposite end of the appeal property to where the first-floor extension is proposed. Therefore, from my visit, and the sun study plans provided, it is apparent that the existing two-storey part of the appeal property already causes significant loss of daylight and sunlight to No.127 due to the layout of the two properties. For these reasons, the proposed first-floor extension to the appeal property would not have a significantly greater effect on No.127, in terms of sunlight or daylight, than the existing house and would comply with the guidance in paragraphs 7.15 to 7.16 of the SPD.

The proposed first-floor extension has been designed with a lower ridge height and stepped in from the front and rear elevation of the original two-storey part of the appeal property. It also takes design cues and material finishes from the existing dwelling and provides an interesting elevation to [address]. The appellant also asserts that the proposed extension would be a significant distance away from the neighbour’s window. However, the evidence before me shows that the proposed extension would be in close proximity to the window of No.127.

I acknowledge that the first-floor window to No.127 currently has an outlook over the single-storey element of the appeal property, albeit restricted to some degree by the two-storey element of the appeal property. However, notwithstanding the design considerations of the proposed first-floor extension, the close proximity, combined with the height and width of the proposed first-floor extension would result in the outlook from No.127 being further restricted and the outlook would be reduced to a significant degree. The proposal would result in the occupiers of No.127 looking out directly at a two-storey brick wall and roof slope, with only a narrow view to the side. This would be oppressive, and have an overbearing impact, to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupants of No.127.

[name] have found no harm, in terms of daylight and sunlight from the proposal this would not outweigh the significant harm I have identified above in regard to the impact on outlook.

For these reasons, I conclude that the appeal proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupants of No.127, with particular regard to outlook. This would be in conflict with Policy CP9 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Development Framework Core Strategy & Allocations, [name], 2019; and Policies DM5 and DM6 of the Newark & Sherwood Local Development Framework Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Document, 2013, which, taken together, seek to ensure that development is of an appropriate form; provides sufficient separation distances; and protects the living conditions of neighbouring properties.

I also find that it would be contrary to the guidance in the SPD which seeks to ensure good standards of living conditions for neighbouring occupants and requires extensions to be designed in a way which does not lead to an unacceptable level of overbearing impacts.

For the reasons given above I have found that the proposal would be contrary to the development plan as a whole, including the Framework. There are no other material considerations that would indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.