Appeal 3310749

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: • The character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • The living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] (No 63) with particular reference to outlook and sunlight.

The appeal property, and the adjacent property No 63, are detached bungalows in a street that is characterised by predominantly two-storey dwellings. The proposed extension would result in a detached two-storey dwelling, leaving No 63 appearing squeezed in between two two-storey houses. This would be exacerbated by the narrowness of the plot of No 63 and the forward projection of the proposed development. As a result, No 63 would appear unduly hemmed in by the buildings either side in the street scene.

The appeal site is positioned adjacent to the junction with [address] (the Grove) and the house on the opposite side of the corner of the Grove (No 57) has a similar sized plot both of which are distinctly larger in size than most of the other plots along this part of [address]. No 57 is a large detached two-storey dwelling. In this regard, the scale, of the resulting proposal would harmonise with the scale of No 57 and indeed the height of most of the other two-storey dwellings in the street.

Given this distinction in the street scene a departure in the form, materials, and fenestration from the prevailing appearance of the other houses in the street would not, in isolation, be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. However, this or the acceptability of other parts of the scheme, such as the replacement garage do not outweigh my concerns regarding the scale of the proposal and the subsequent effects on the appearance of No [address] scene. This is, in my view, overriding.

I therefore find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore conflict with the requirements of Policies DS1 and DS3 of the Council’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2017) (CS), its Householder Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. Taken together these, amongst other things, are concerned with the character and appearance of developments. Living conditions - No 63

No 63 has windows to the side elevation that face toward the appeal property and the boundary. Moreover, it has a small garden and both properties are set close to the common boundary. The combined additional bulk and massing of the two-storey element would be an imposing feature where seen over the boundary. This dominance would create an unduly hemmed in feeling and sense of enclosure.

The additional bulk and massing of the proposed built form would be to the north of No 63. As such, given the orientation of the sun relative to the appeal property and No 63 there would be no significant overshadowing from the proposal or loss of sunlight.

I therefore find that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 63 with particular reference to outlook. The proposal would therefore conflict with the requirements of Policy DS5 of the CS and the SPD, which amongst other things, seeks development that does not harm the amenity of existing residents.

The appellant has made changes to their scheme, following the refusal of an earlier application with a view to finding a solution. However, this is not a matter for my consideration in this appeal and I am only able to make my decision considering the plans that were before the Council when it made its

Extending the property would meet the appellant’s need for increased accommodation, would help renovate the property and would be built to modern standards. However, these are not considerations that outweigh the harm that I have identified in the main issues.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.