Appeal 3314207

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council changed the description of development from that stated on the application form in the interests of clarity. I consider that the amended description accurately describes the appeal scheme and accordingly I have adopted the amended description in the heading above.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on (i) the character of the area of the area and existing property; and (ii) the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The appeal site is a modest semi-detached property within a predominantly residential area. In general, there is a harmony to the streetscene in terms of form, design and materials.

The proposed extension to the front dormer is not dissimilar to others within the immediate area. The proposed rear first floor extension would extend from the rear wall of the existing property and provide a shallow pitched roof. Due to the location of the appeal site, the side and rear of the property is visible in the streetscene. The proposed rear extension due to its location, design and scale would be an alien feature to the existing property and the area in general.

My attention has been drawn by the Appellant to extensions to properties within the area, photographs have been provided to allow me to assess these schemes against the proposal before me. [name] appreciate the photographs show large dormer windows and first floor extensions, none appear similar to the proposed rear extension before me. In any event each development must be considered on its individual merits, and I have reached my conclusion based on the individual merit of the appeal proposal.

The proposed development would be an unsympathetic addition to the host property and immediate area. I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and the existing property.

There is conflict with Policy CS8.10 of the South Lakeland Development Framework, [name] (2010) (the [name]) and Policies DM1 and DM2 of the South Lakeland District Council Local Plan, Development Management Policies (2019) (the Local Plan) which seek amongst other things to ensure development makes a positive contribution to a locality and responds appropriately to local context and character.

There is also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) (the Framework) which seeks amongst other things to ensure developments are of good design appropriate and sympathetic to their surroundings.

The existing property is situated on a modest plot. There is an existing window in the side elevation of the existing property and a small roof light on the rear roof. Notwithstanding this, opportunities of overlooking towards neighbouring properties is limited.

The proposed rear extension would introduce direct overlooking to neighbouring properties, in particular No. [address]. Whilst mutual overlooking does exist between properties in this area; the scale, positioning and design of the proposed development would exacerbate the sense of being under surveillance and would dimmish the levels of privacy currently experienced.

I conclude that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

There is conflict with Policy CS8.10 of the [name] and Policies DM1 and DM2 of the Local Plan which seek amongst other things to ensure development protects the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties through the delivery of acceptable levels of privacy.

There is also conflict with the Framework which seeks to ensure developments have high standards of amenity for existing and future users.

For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.