Appeal 3311293

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant states that “the applicant has built the single storey element of the application.”

The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook and privacy.

The appeal property comprises a two storey semi-detached dwelling fronting [address] but accessed from [address], to the rear.

The appeal property is set back a considerable distance from [address] and is accessed via a long shared driveway, which runs between Number [address] and Number [address].

The appeal property is sited such that the dwelling is situated alongside No 257’s main garden area. During my site visit, I observed that No 257’s windows facing towards [address] provide views across the rear of the appeal property, albeit from an oblique angle and vice versa.

The appeal property is located within a residential area. With the exception of the appeal property and its adjoining neighbour, most dwellings in the area comprise detached dwellings set back from [address] in a generally uniform manner, within comfortable garden plots characterised by main gardens being set between dwellings and [address].

This provides for a spacious and relatively uniform local character.

In the above regard, the position of the appeal property and its adjoining neighbour is slightly unusual. The two dwellings are set very close to [address], with only small garden areas and are set a long way back from [address]. As a consequence of this, changes to the appeal property would be widely visible from other dwellings accessed from [address], notably No [address], as well as from [address] itself. 10.Currently, the appeal property appears as a modest dwelling within a generally spacious area. Whilst not identical, its similarity to the adjoining dwelling, Number 1 [name] provides for a sense of balance and symmetry, which whilst not uniform with the surrounding area, contributes a degree of uniformity. 11.The proposed development would extend the dwelling to the side and rear (towards [address]) at two storey height. 12.The overall mass of the proposed development, which would extend across the majority of the width of the host dwelling and which would maintain the same eaves and ridge height as the original main roof, would result in an overwhelming addition that would fail to appear subservient to the host dwelling. 13.Further to the above, the proposed height and massing would be of such a scale and dominance as to erode the sense of symmetry with No 1, as well as reduce the area’s spacious qualities. Consequently, the proposed development would appear discordant. 14.Taking the above into account, I find that the proposed development would serve to harm the area’s identified attributes. This would be contrary to the NPPF; to Core Strategy1 Policy CS9 and to Local Plan2 Policy H9, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Living conditions 15.The proposed development would extend the dwelling towards No [address] at a two-storey height. The scale and proximity of the development proposed would result in a large and imposing development appearing to “loom” above No 257’s garden area to an overbearing degree. 16.The harm arising from this would be exacerbated as a result of the creation of first floor windows that would provide for inter-visibility between the main bedrooms of the appeal property and No 257, from very close proximity. I find that this would result in significant scope for overlooking and loss of privacy. 1 [site address] Local Plan Core Strategy 2013-2030 (2015). 2 [site address] Local Plan Part 2 (2021). 2 Further, as a result of the close proximity arising, this would not be mitigated to any acceptable degree by the angle between windows. 17.Taking the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regards to outlook and privacy. This would be contrary to the NPPF; to Core Strategy Policy CS9 and to Local Plan Part 2 Policy A1, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.