Appeal 3355942

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions for the occupiers of the neighbouring property to the east at no [address], with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site is a two storey, mid terraced dwelling situated within a residential area. Several of the dwellings along [address] have single storey rear extensions of varying depths and design. There is an existing staggered depth single storey extension on the rear elevation of the dwelling. The rear eastern boundary treatment with the no [address] (no. 33) is a close boarded timber fence with a height of approximately 1.8m. No. 33 has not been extended on the rear elevation and possesses double doors which open onto a patio close to the common boundary.

The existing flat roof extension on the rear elevation is of a similar depth to that of the proposal, but currently steps in from the boundary with no 33 and therefore reduces the impact on the rear outlook of no.33. This would contrast with the proposed extension which would extend the full width of the plot and immediately adjoin the boundary for a depth of 9.5 metres, creating a significantly increased sense of enclosure and an adverse impact on outlook from the rear of no.33.

I have had regard to the recently dismissed appeal decision at the site (Appeal ref: APP/W5780/D/24/3338937), and that the proposed extension, although identical in Appeal Planning Officer APP/W5780/D/24/3355942 terms of width and depth, proposed a mostly flat roof with a height of 2.8 metres which then chamfered to a height of 2 metres on the boundary with no 33. The current scheme is for an entirely flat roof with an increased overall height of 3 metres. The proposal would be substantially higher than the existing boundary fence and would appear as an oppressive and overbearing addition when viewed from the rear doors and windows of no 33, and from it’s rear patio area.

Cumulatively, the proximity to the boundary, as well as the proposed height and depth of the extension, would significantly worsen the outlook from no 33. I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of no 33, having regard to outlook. The proposed development would conflict with Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Local Plan which seek to ensure the provision of good design and to reduce the adverse impact upon amenity of neighbouring occupiers in relation to outlook.

It is apparent from the plans submitted that the proposal would benefit a disabled person. The submitted floor plan proposes a kitchen, dining area, separate utility room, separate bathroom and bedroom to meet the needs of the individual. I have therefore had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in s149 of the Equalities Act 2010. The duty includes having regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, and advance equality of opportunity between those sharing relevant protected characteristics and those who do not.

It has not been demonstrated that the scale of the proposal is specifically required by virtue of it’s design to meet the needs of the disabled person, or that these needs cannot be met in a different or less harmful way, including by the extant planning permission ([name]. 3335/23). I am mindful that personal circumstances and occupants of a property can change, but the effect of the development would be permanent. [name] must attribute some limited weight to the specific needs, on the basis of the evidence submitted before me, the PSED considerations would not outweigh the significant harm that I have identified on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. I am satisfied that the impact of dismissing this appeal is proportionate and justified and that the needs of the disabled person could be met through the implementation of the extant planning permission.

I have also had regard to the indication that the neighbour is awaiting the result of this appeal with a view to undertaking a similar extension. However, there is no certainty that this will happen, and it cannot therefore weigh in support of the proposed development. The absence of an objection from the neighbouring occupiers is ultimately a neutral factor and does not alter my conclusions on the planning merits of the proposal.

The proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of no [address] in terms of outlook and is therefore in conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. Material considerations, including the consideration against the PSED, do not indicate that the decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. Appeal Planning Officer APP/W5780/D/24/3355942

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.