Appeal 3314730

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • The effect on the character and appearance of the area. • The effect on the living conditions of the occupants of the dwelling and neighbouring properties with regards outlook and privacy.

The appeal site is a bungalow with separate double garage located in a prominent position in a small hamlet. Part of the site is on elevated ground above the highway. Neighbouring properties are predominantly [address] proximity due to the narrow width of the road and absence of footpaths.

The proposal would create a development of similar scale to other development in the vicinity. However, design features such as the dormer windows and largely featureless area below them would create a massing that would be domineering and prominent. This would be further exacerbated by the location and positioning of the development within the site on elevated ground.

The development would create an unsightly incongruous addition that would be detrimental to the street scene. The development would harm the character and appearance of the area and conflict with Policies SS2 and SDP1 of the [name] 2 Local Plan (Local Plan). Amongst other things they require new development to be compatible with the local character of the area in terms of scale, massing, siting and form.

The proposed first floor windows of the development would create an issue of overlooking between the appeal site and properties opposite due to the close proximity. The angled position of the development would be insufficient to avoid a negative impact on the privacy of both the occupants of the dwelling and residents opposite. The height and massing of the development in close proximity would also create a poor outlook for the neighbours opposite. The external staircase would create an elevated external platform close to the boundary to the neighbour to the side of the site which would also impact on privacy.

Even if, as suggested by the appellant, there were no issue of overshadowing, there would be harm to living conditions with regards outlook and privacy. The development would consequently conflict with the parts of Policy SS2 and SDP1 of the Local Plan which require that new development should not have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers including outlook and privacy.

I note the benefits of the development for the appellant and the constraints associated with locating the development elsewhere within the site. However, this is outweighed by the harm identified.

I also note that the development would provide living space for the appellant’s relative. [name] have sympathy for their personal circumstances there is little to indicate that the development would provide the only solution in resolving the matter. The need is outweighed by the harm I have identified.

Whilst the appellant has suggested possible amendments to the development, the appeal process is not the place to further a scheme. My assessment is based on the scheme before me and which interested parties have had the opportunity to comment.

For the reasons identified, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.