Appeal 3358733

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the: • Character and appearance of the area; and • Living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook and levels of sunlight.

The appeal property forms a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling adjacent to the highway. There is a variation in the scale and design of properties within the area. Nevertheless, the dwellings to the east of the appeal site along [address] appear relatively narrow with a vertical emphasis.

The appeal property forms a two-storey forward facing gable with adjoining single-storey subservient flat roofed element, resulting in the front gable forming the primary visual focus within the street scene. The appeal dwelling projects modestly to the rear, furthering its vertical emphasis.

The prosed two-storey side extension would be a similar width to that of the existing single-storey. The ridge line would be slightly below that of the front gable with the eaves above that of the existing. This would result in the side-extension appearing dominant and lacking subservience, competing with the host dwelling, diminishing the prominence of the front gable feature. The increased width at two-storey level combined with the substantial projection to the rear creates a squat form and erodes the existing vertical nature of the appeal property. This squat form would appear out of character when viewed in the context of the dwellings to the east along the highway. Whilst the materials and architectural details would be similar to that of the host dwelling, this would not negate the dominant appearance of the proposal and its harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area.

For these reasons, therefore, the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, in this regard, it would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy D3 of The Spatial Development Strategy for [name] (2021) (London Plan), and Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) (Local Plan). When read together, these policies require new development to enhance local context and respect local character.

The appeal property is positioned close to the boundary with [address] (No 77). No 77 benefits from a modest garden with large trees to the rear and an open section closest to the rear elevation of the property. Whilst the appeal property projects beyond the rear elevation of No 77, the single-storey flat roofed section allows separation between the two-storey part of the appeal dwelling and the shared boundary. This provides an open outlook and good levels of sunlight for the occupiers of No 77 from the ground floor rear windows and garden area.

The proposal would result in the two-storey side extension being close to the shared boundary with No 77. Combined with its significant projection to the rear, the proposal would create a substantial form of development beyond the rear elevation of No 77. Further, the proposal would finish approximately in line with the mature trees to the rear of No 77, projecting along almost the entirety of the open area of rear garden. As such, the proposal would appear overbearing and dominant from the rear ground floor windows and garden area of No 77, in addition to severely restricting sunlight from this direction. Therefore, the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 77.

For these reasons, therefore, the development would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 77 with particular regard to outlook and levels of sunlight. Consequently, in this regard, it would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan and Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Local Plan. When read together these policies require development to protect the living conditions of adjoining occupiers through delivering appropriate outlook and providing sufficient sunlight.

The proposal is located close to facilities and services and is not located within a conservation area nor is the existing dwelling listed. Nevertheless, given the nature of the proposal, these are neutral factors and weigh neither for nor against the

The appellant indicates that the existing dwelling is not fit for purpose. Nevertheless, I see no reason why a less harmful scheme could not achieve the additional living space required.

Whilst there may be examples of overshadowing from flatted developments within the area, this does not justify the above identified harm.

I note the appellant raises the Council’s conduct during the application process. Nonetheless, this is not something I can consider as part of this appeal.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.