Appeal 3325493

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of the residents of [address] with regard to outlook.

The proposal would result in a number of alterations to this house, including a single storey extension along the shared boundaries with 30 and [address]. The council have only raised concerns with regard to the impact of the single storey extension on [address]. Number 30 has a rear extension of more limited depth on the shared boundary, matching the depth of the existing extension at number 28. It has a deeper element which is set well away from the boundary. This ensures that the residents of number 28 have a relatively open aspect from the existing patio doors and the patio area itself, despite the high boundary fence. The deeper section of the neighbouring ground floor extension is dual aspect although its larger windows face the shared boundary.

The proposal would enclose the retained open area to the rear of the neighbouring property. This would significantly reduce the outlook from the patio area; the existing rear facing windows closest to the boundary; and also the side facing windows of the deeper part of the neighbouring extension. This arrangement would also reduce direct morning sunlight to the retained patio area and to the extension, particularly the rear facing windows. This loss of outlook and increased shading would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the residents of [address]. www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision: APP/B4215/D/23/3325493

Given the above, the proposal would be contrary to policy DM1 of the [name] (2012); and saved policy DC1(1.1b, 1.2b and 1.3a) of the Unitary Development Plan for the City of Manchester (1995), as these require that regard be had for neighbouring amenity. The proposal would also conflict with the amenity requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Reference is made to the Council’s ‘Guide to Development in Manchester Supplementary Planning Document and Planning Guidance’ and to the [name] policies SP1 and EN1. These do not add to the more detailed provisions of the policies referred to above in this particular regard.

Reference has been made to a large extension at [address] but the council advise that this was achieved by way of the prior approval procedure. I am not therefore satisfied that the council has been inconsistent in its approach. I also do not find the developments to be entirely comparable and must in any event, consider this proposal on its own merits.

I have had regard to the personal circumstances of the appellant and the reported condition of the house. I am also mindful that neighbouring residents were consulted and no responses were received. Whilst these matters offer weight in favour of allowing alterations to the property, they are not sufficient to outweigh my concerns given the current layout of number 30. I therefore dismiss the appeal.