Appeal 3336367

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council changed the description of development from that stated on the application form. In the interests of clarity, I consider that the amended description accurately describes the appeal scheme and accordingly I have adopted an amended description in the heading above.

Since the determination of the application the National Planning Policy Framework has been superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework (2023) (the Framework). However, in relation to this appeal the aims of both sets of policies are similar. No party would be prejudiced or caused any injustice by me proceeding with the appeal in light of this change in policy.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The site is a detached two storey property located within a residential estate. Gaps between the appeal site and adjacent properties No’s 50 and 54 are narrow, which is not unusual in the immediate area. To the rear of the appeal site, works are underway at ground floor level which I understand relates to the existing permission.

The proposal before me is an amended scheme reducing the scale of development from a previously refused and dismissed at appeal proposal1. Notwithstanding this the proposed development would be substantial in size.

The proposed first floor windows would be closer to the rear boundary, overlooking already occurs from the existing rear facing bedroom windows. Notwithstanding this, the positioning of the proposed extension closer to the boundary would result in direct overlooking from the windows over the majority of the rear garden of No. 56 [name]. For the occupiers of No. 56 this would exacerbate the sense of being under surveillance and would diminish the enjoyment of their property.

There are level differences within the area, in relation to the appeal site the land rises from No. 54 towards No. 50. No. 50 sits at a higher level to the appeal site and has a substantial landscaped boundary. Notwithstanding this the proposed development would be to the south of No. 50, and despite the level difference between the sites the development would be obvious to the occupiers of No. 50. The existing boundary treatment is not within the control of the Appellant and as such could be removed at any time. On this basis the proposed development would be prominent and in my opinion has the potential to cause a degree of overshadowing to the neighbouring property.

Due to the scale, design and existing land levels the proposed development would be dominant and overbearing to No. 54. The effect of the scheme would overall diminish unacceptably the living conditions of occupiers of the neighbouring properties.

I conclude that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties. There would be conflict with Policy BT2 of the Calderdale Local Plan 2018/19-2032/33 (2023) which seeks to protect the living conditions for existing and prospective residents. 11.The development would be contrary to the Framework which seeks to ensure developments have high standards of amenity for existing and future users.

The Appellant has highlighted that the proposed development is required due to the personal circumstances of the occupants. I have had regard to the comments raised. Nevertheless, I have not been provided with demonstrable evidence to confirm that an alternative development could not be provided to meet the needs of the occupants.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. 1 23/00382/HSE & APP/A4710/D/23/3325958