Appeal 3362270

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 issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupants of 2 The Oval, having particular regard to outlook and sunlight.

The appeal site is located on a prominent corner junction of [address] and The Oval. The dwellings surrounding the appeal site are typically of the inter-war style; namely being two-storey semi-detached with hipped roofs and bay windows, interspersed with detached properties of the same design such as the appeal site. The properties are set back from the road behind low walls or hedges, some with gates to define their boundary. The appeal property fronts [address], and the rear of the property sits close to the boundary with its neighbour, no. 2 The Oval; both of these properties have rear gardens which are small and triangular in shape.

The surrounding area is dominantly suburban and quiet in character, with the roads leading to further residential areas. It is further characterised by its verdant nature, with the houses on The Oval being situated around a large green area planted with mature shrubbery and trees, which is overlooked by the appeal site. A number of the properties in the surrounding area have two storey side extensions, which are recessed from the main bulk of the dwellings and have complimentary roof styles.

The proposed development is a first-floor extension above the existing garage and would have the appearance of the accommodation being within the roof space as the front and rear aspects would be angled at a steep pitch. These angled walls of the proposal would represent a significant and unacceptable departure from the existing traditional architectural style of the street scene and would introduce an alien feature into the area, to the detriment of both the host property and the wider area. The impact of this would be exacerbated by the appeal sites prominent corner position.

In coming to that view, I acknowledge that the proposal has evolved to minimise its visual impact and ensure that it would be subservient to the host dwelling, Whilst the proposal would be subservient, the overall design and visual appearance has an incompatible design, which would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area.

Consequently, I find that the proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would thus conflict with PolicyDC1 of the Staffordshire Moorlands Local Plan (2020) (LP), which amongst other matters seeks to ensure development is well designed and reinforces local distinctiveness. It would also conflict with the overarching design aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the [name] (SMDG) and [name] for Development SPDs, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

As a result of juxtaposition of the proposed extension to the garden and rear windows of no.2 The Oval, the proposed development would be highly visible and would have a significant enclosing impact on the garden area of No. 2. This would be particularly the case given its proximity to the boundary and the rear garden area of No.2 and the overall height and massing of the extension. As such, the proposal would have an unacceptable enclosing effect of the garden area of No.2 to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupier of that property.

In respect of potential loss of sunlight and overshadowing, any impact would be most greatly felt during the afternoon and evening, especially during the winter months when the trajectory of the sun is lower in the sky. Whilst the loss of sunlight and any resultant overshadowing to the garden area of No.2 is likely to the limited, in the absence of any convincing evidence to the contrary, I find that the loss of sunlight would increase the level of harm to the occupiers of no.2.

Consequently, I find that the proposed development would result in an unacceptable level of harm to the living conditions of the occupants of 2The Oval, contrary to Policies SS1 and DC1 of the LP which, amongst other matters seek to protect the amenity of the area, including sunlight and outlook. It would also be contrary to the Framework and the SMDG in that respect.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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