Appeal 3323202

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the raising and reconfiguration of the roof to provide first floor accommodation, repositioning of the main entrance to the front elevation, and alterations to openings at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 5/23/0009, dated 3 January 2023, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: J1886/Po1 [name], P02, P03, P04, and P05 [name].

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], particularly by reason of any overbearing impact.

[address] is a residential street that includes both two storey and single storey properties. The appeal dwelling is currently single storey, and the proposal involves the erection of a first floor. The new first floor has been designed with a hipped roof, in an attempt to minimise the impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address].

The rear elevation of No 54 faces the appeal site, and is at a lower level. However, the distance between the two dwellings, and the fact that the proposed extension would have a hipped roof, would mean that the appeal proposal would not appear unduly overbearing when seen from any of the rooms in No 54’s rear elevation.

The Council is concerned that the additional height of the proposed extension, including the height of the ridge, would result in the proposed extension still appearing overbearing when seen from No 54, even though the BRE guidance relating to sunlight and daylight would be complied with. However, the difference in levels between the two dwellings and the proposed hipped roof would mean that the new ridge would not be a prominent feature when seen from No 54. Instead, it would be the new side wall that would be the dominant feature when viewed from the adjacent property, with the eaves appearing as the top of that wall. I do not consider that the resulting impact would be unacceptable.

I conclude that the development would not have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], and would comply with Policy 72 of the [site address] District Local Plan Review 1994 which says, amongst other things, that the light, privacy or amenity of adjoining property shall not be unacceptably harmed.

As well as standard conditions relating to when the development should commence and compliance with the approved plans, a condition requiring the external materials used to match the existing building is necessary, to protect the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions set out above.