Appeal 3334535

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the building and area, and the effect on the living conditions of neighbours at [name] in respect of received sunlight.

Rosehill is a single storey dwelling with accommodation in the attic. It is located within a row of generally similar dwellings with front gardens which line the same side of the sloping road of [site address] . Several of the dwellings have been extended, including rear roof dormers at nearby [name] and The Brambles. There are also two storey dwellings in the vicinity.

The Council has calculated that the proposed extensions at Rosehill would represent around an 88% increase in floorspace compared with that of the original dwelling and garage. The proposal includes large extensions to the rear and side, extension, and conversion of the garage, raising the roofline by around 1.6 metres, replacement windows and addition of Juliet balconies. There would be a substantial area of glazing to the rear extension at ground floor level. There is rear glazing at [name] and [name], but not to the same design or extent.

Despite the extensions to other neighbouring properties in [site address] those proposed at Rosehill would appear excessive and out of character because of their design, scale, and massing. They would not reflect the scale, form, and character of the original dwelling contrary to advice in the [name].

I find that the proposal would significantly harm the character and appearance of the building and area. It would therefore be contrary to policies OS2, OS4 and H6 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan which seek to ensure sustainability, high quality design and development which respects the character of the surrounding area. It would also conflict with the design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The proposed extensions would have no harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbours at The Brambles, which is sited at a higher level than Rosehill. [name] is sited at a lower level because of the sloping land and has a fenced boundary to the appeal site with conifer hedging, which will already cause some overshadowing of their garden. The rear of the dwellings faces almost north towards the open countryside. There would be an increased loss of sunlight to the rear elevation of [name] during the early morning period and the proposal would be potentially overbearing because of the height, bulk and proximity of the proposed rear extension and increased roof height at Rosehill.

Therefore, there would be some increased harm to the living conditions of neighbours at [name] from the proposal, contrary to policies OS2, OS4 and H6 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan and the Framework, which amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.

The appellant has referred to an amended design in a new application which was submitted to the Council. However, I must determine this appeal on the basis of the application which was refused by the Council.

I have taken all other matters raised into account. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.