Appeal 3358940

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal property recently received prior approval for a proposed rear extension1. However, that prior approval relates to an extension which would not extend as far to the rear, adjacent to the shared rear boundary with Number 14 [site address] , as the proposal the subject of this appeal.

One of the Council’s reasons for refusal referred to their being insufficient information in respect of trees. However, having visited the site, there do not appear to be any significant trees within close proximity to the proposed development. In any case, the Council’s Tree Officer has suggested that a condition could be imposed to provide appropriate safeguards in this respect.

The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and it’s the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number 14 [site address] , with regards to outlook.

The appeal property comprises a semi-detached dwelling set back from the road behind a front garden and parking area. The appeal property has a small ground floor rear extension which looks out over a large rear garden. 1 Reference: 3042/24.

The appeal property is located in a residential area characterised by the presence of two storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings set back from the road behind gardens and/or parking areas and with gardens to the rear. The presence of green spaces, gardens and trees provides for a green and spacious character.

During my site visit, I observed that many dwellings in the area have been altered and or/extended and that changes tend to appear in keeping with the appearance of host dwellings and the surrounding area.

The proposed development would comprise a single storey extension. Whilst relatively large compared to the footprint of the host dwelling, the proposal would extend into a very large rear garden. As a consequence, the proposal would appear in scale and character with its surroundings, a factor that would be enhanced by the juxtaposition of Numbers 12 and [site address] [site address] , whereby the rear of the appeal dwelling angles away from No 12.

Given this, I find that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area. The proposed development would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework or to Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Local Plan2, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

As noted above, the proposed development would project further to the rear, adjacent to the shared boundary with No 14, than would a previous proposal benefitting from prior approval.

Number 14 has not been extended to the rear and consequently, the proposed development would appear to extend along the shared rear boundary for a significant distance when seen from this neighbouring dwelling’s rear-facing ground floor windows, as well as from that area of garden closest to No 14’s rear elevation.

Whilst a shorter rear projection, as per the proposal benefitting from prior approval, would be acceptable, the proposal the subject of this appeal would result in a development that would, due to extending for such a considerable distance, at a significant height and within immediate proximity, appear to loom above the shared rear boundary with No 14 to the extent that it would appear overbearing.

This would result in a poor outlook from No 14, whereby the proposed development would draw attention to itself and appear as an unduly dominant feature.

Taking the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Number 14 [site address] with regards to outlook, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Local Plan, which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.

The appeal does not succeed.