Appeal 3348646

The appeal is dismissed.

A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been published since the planning application was determined by the Council. I have had regard to the revised Framework in reaching my decision.

The main issues raised by this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the area and the living conditions of existing adjoining occupiers at No.[address].

The rear extension would have a large footprint, larger than that of the original host dwelling, and would be of significant size as a result of its proposed depth and height. It would also be larger than the existing rear extensions that it would replace and project further than rear extensions that have been added to the neighbouring properties either side.

The rear extension would have a dual pitched roof that would not reflect the design and form of the main roof of the host dwelling. The extension’s architectural design approach would not respect the character or appearance of the host property. As such, the proposed extension would not visually assimilate well with the host property.

The proposal would represent a visually dominant addition to the dwelling and would create a disproportionately large and visually harmful extension to the host dwelling. For this reason, the proposed development would be harmful.

The proposal would not be readily visible from the street scene, as contended by the Council since the development would be to the rear of the dwelling. Nonetheless, the visual harm arising from the proposed extension would be visible in the outlook of existing neighbouring occupiers.

I accept that the proposal would represent a design improvement to that of the existing rear extension and that a significant proportion of the rear garden would be retained as outdoor amenity space. Whilst these are benefits of the proposed scheme they do not outweigh my above concerns or justify the proposed development.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the area. The proposal would, therefore conflict with Policy CP4 of the [site address] [name] 2007, Policies DM1 and DM3 of the [site address] Development Management Document 2015, the [site address] Design and [name] 2009, the National Design Guide 2021 and the provisions of the Framework. These policies and guidance seek, amongst other matters, development to add to the overall quality of the area and respect the character of the site, its local context and surroundings in terms of its architectural approach with alterations to a building making a positive contribution to the character of the original building and the surrounding area.

The occupiers of neighbouring properties should reasonably expect to enjoy an acceptable outlook as part of their residential lives. The extension would create a development of significant size and height in extremely close proximity to the adjoining occupiers of No.[address].

The existing rear extension at No.[address] proximity to No.18. No.18 has been extended at the rear. Those extensions, which include a conservatory, are sited at the south side of No.18. However, the proposed development would project further from the rear of the appeal property than that of the existing extension and conservatory and, therefore, would be a larger extension at the rear of No.20.

The resulting rear projection at No.20 would be extremely dominant in the outlook from the rear habitable living space within this neighbouring property, as well as from their outdoor living space at the rear of the dwelling. The visually dominant impact of this addition in such close proximity to the adjoining property would create a sense of being enclosed by built development. Consequently, this would diminish the enjoyment of the residential living environment for the neighbouring occupiers. As such, this would harm the enjoyment the existing occupiers should reasonably expect to enjoy.

I acknowledge that no objection has been raised by the occupiers of No.18 to the proposal. Whilst this may be so, there remains the need to consider the proposal in terms of the living conditions of the existing adjoining occupiers.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of existing adjoining occupiers at No.[address]. The proposal would, therefore conflict with Policy CP4 of the [site address] [name] 2007, Policies DM1 and DM3 of the [site address] Development Management Document 2015, the [site address] Design and [name] 2009, the National Design Guide 2021 and the provisions of the Framework. These policies and guidance seek, amongst other matters, to ensure that development protects the amenities of immediate neighbours.

I note the appellants wish to extend the property to provide for personal mobility/ability needs. [name] sympathise with the personal circumstances of the appellants, I am mindful that the harm identified would be permanent and this is not outweighed by the appellants’ particular circumstance.

Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.