Appeal 3321899

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development is set out differently on the Council’s decision notice compared to the planning application form, which I have taken the description of development from. The application form omits reference to the demolition of existing sheds and a conservatory and it also refers to the rear extension as single storey whereas the plans show it as two-storey. Furthermore, the plans indicate a part single storey, part two storey and first floor side extensions. Notwithstanding the description of development as set out on the planning application form, the proposal is clearly shown on the submitted plans and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are: - Whether the proposal would provide satisfactory living conditions for current and future occupants of the host property in terms of sunlight and daylight and outlook, and - The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property.

The proposal includes a main bedroom (bedroom 2) which would be served by an obscure glazed window and would thus lack any quality outlook. Bedroom 2 would likely be a key habitable room. The absence of any quality outlook from the room would be detrimental to the enjoyment of the property for current and future occupants.

I note that the appellant has disputed the necessity of obscure glazing to serve bedroom 2, however, the submitted plans clearly label the windows as obscurely glazed, I have considered the appeal on this basis. This appeal is not the appropriate route to consider amendments to the scheme especially as I cannot be satisfied that parties would not be prejudiced by this.

The Council’s reason for refusal also raises concern in terms of light to bedroom 2, it is not specified whether this applies to sun or daylight. Whilst the use of obscure glazing would restrict outlook to a harmful degree, it would not adversely impact upon light. There is a good separation distance between the bedroom window and the nearest neighbouring property – No 194. The window would be north facing which would limit the amount of sunlight received, however, the separation distance would likely allow for a good level of daylight to reach the window.

The proposal would therefore fail to provide satisfactory living conditions in terms of outlook for current and future occupants of the host property. The proposal would therefore conflict with the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2021 (LP) Policy BE3 which seeks to ensure that development would not unreasonably harm any expect of the amenity of existing residents.

The appeal property comprises a detached dwelling which sits within a linear pattern of housing on the eastern side of [address]. The Council’s reason for refusal relates to the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property, there is no objection raised in respect of the effect on the street scene. Having regard to the siting of the proposed extensions, primarily to the rear of the property, I find no reason to disagree.

The proposal would create space, and visual relief along the northern side boundary which does not currently exist. Key characteristics of the existing dwelling include a pitched roof form with gable features, these would remain prominent and would be preserved as part of the appeal scheme. The extensions would be set down in height from the existing ridge height and would not alter the primary, front elevation of the dwelling. As such, whilst the scale of the extensions would lead to a significant change from the original shape of the host dwelling, the retention of key design features would serve to preserve its character and the extensions would integrate well with the existing dwelling. For these reasons, I find that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

The proposal would therefore comply with LP Policy BE2 and Policy H2 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2013-2033 and guidance contained within the Council’s Design Guide on [name]. The policies and guidance, when read together, and insofar as relevant to this appeal, seek to ensure development respects the local distinctiveness and character of the area including ensuring alterations to existing buildings reflect the character and scale of surrounding buildings.

Although the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its effect on character and appearance, this would not override the failure to provide satisfactory living conditions in terms of outlook for current and future occupants. The appeal scheme would therefore be contrary to the development plan taken as a whole and there are no other matters which indicate that planning permission should be granted. For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.