Appeal 3363532

The appeal is dismissed.

Amended plans were submitted as part of the planning application submission. In this context, I have taken the description of the proposed development from the Council’s refusal notice, rather than from the planning application form, as it more precisely describes the amended proposals that are before me.

The main issues are the effect of the development upon i) the character and appearance of the area and ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address] in respect of outlook and light.

The appeal site falls within an established residential area. It is a corner plot on the junction of [address] and County Road South. The dwellinghouses in the area are predominantly two storey and of brick construction and with hipped roofs. The detached appeal property differs in terms of its design to the dwellings on the rest of [address] and is lower in height. It is proposed to raise the ridge height of the main roof of the house and to erect a two storey rear extension which would project about 4 metres from the original two storey rear wall of the property. A single storey and contiguous side extension is also proposed to dwelling and near to the existing detached garage.

I acknowledge that the existing dwelling is not as high as No. 80, [address] or indeed the other properties in this street. However, I do not find that the proposed increase in the ridge height of the appeal property, which incidentally would still be about 200 mm lower than that existing at No. [address] would cause material harm to the way that the character and appearance of the street-scene is experienced by passers-by. Therefore, given the differing appearance of the appeal property relative to others in [address] including No. 80, I do not find that the taller proposed ridge height of the projecting gable would be unacceptable in overall design terms.

Notwithstanding the above, the rear of the property is highly visible from parts of County Road South. From this area, the rear of the dwellings in [address] can be seen. There is a design synergy to these properties in terms of mainly single storey rear additions. In this context, and, given the extent, height and massing of the proposed two storey rear extension, I find that it would fail to assimilate appropriately into the surrounding environment. Indeed, it would constitute a dominant and out of proportion addition when seen from County Road South. Its adversely dominant impact would be exacerbated owing to the fact that it would constitute an extension of the new roof which would be raised in height in relative terms.

[name] find that the single storey side extension element of the proposal would be acceptable, I nonetheless conclude that the two storey rear extension would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and would not constitute good design. In this regard, and when the proposal is considered as a whole, I conclude that it would not accord with the design, character and appearance requirements of policies 14 and 22 of the adopted 2017 Hull Local Plan 2016-2032 (LP) or with the Council’s SPD 1: Designing a [name] (SPD).

As part of my site visit, I was able to consider the effect of the development upon the occupiers of of No. 80, [address]. Given the orientation of the two storey rear extension relative to the rear amenity space and windows of No. 80, [address], there would likely be some overshadowing and hence loss of light caused in the early mornings. However, any such adverse impact would be constrained by the proposed limited depth of the proposed extension, and any such adverse effect would not occur throughout the whole of the day. For these reasons, I do not consider that any such loss of light to the occupiers of No. 80, [address] would be so significant as to warrant the dismissal of the appeal.

The proposed two storey rear extension would have a depth of approximately 4 metres from the rear elevation of the original dwelling and would be comparable in its depth to the single storey extension to the adjoining property. It would not be overlooked by any habitable window in the side elevation of the adjoining property and, by its limited depth, I do not find that its impact upon the outlook from No. 80, [address] would be unacceptably overbearing.

Therefore, for the above reasons, I conclude that development would accord with the amenity requirements of policy 22 of the LP and the SPD.