Appeal 3365068

The appeal is dismissed.

A previous application for the construction of a single storey side/rear extension was approved in 20231. The proposed development the subject of this appeal differs in design to the previously approved proposal. The proposal the subject of this appeal would be wider, taller and larger than the previously approved proposal.

The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook.

The appeal property is a brick-built terraced dwelling located on a relatively steep hillside slope. It forms one of a row of similar dwellings arranged in staggered plots, such that rear external gardens are located immediately adjacent to the rear elevation of neighbouring dwellings.

Dwellings in the terrace have parking areas and small gardens to the front and the local topography results in the appeal dwelling, like neighbouring dwellings in the same terrace, appearing as two stories from the front and three stories from the rear. The similar appearance of dwellings within the terrace combines with the pattern of development to contribute a positive sense of uniformity to the area. 1 Reference: 23/05312/FUL.

As noted above, the appeal dwelling benefits from planning permission for a side/rear extension. Whilst the permitted development, were it built, would be of a modest height and would retain space to the neighbouring boundary with Number [address], the proposal the subject of this appeal would extend across the full width of the rear garden and up to the shared boundary with No 28.

I find that this, combined with the significant height of the proposal, would result in the proposal appearing as a considerable addition that would largely fill the rear garden area, leading the appeal dwelling to appear somewhat squeezed into its plot. The harm arising from this would be exacerbated as a result of the proposal drawing attention to itself as a feature out of keeping with the existing pattern of development in the area.

Consequently, the proposal would, due to its height, width, scale and siting, result in an incongruous form of development.

Given the above, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policies DM35 and DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (2019); and to the Council’s Householder Planning and Design Supplementary Planning Document (2020), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

In extending all the way to the boundary with No 28, the proposal would result in the presence of a very tall and dominant form of development rising well above the tall-shared boundary fence. The height, depth and immediate proximity of the proposal would result in it appearing to “loom” above No 28’s rear garden area to an overbearing degree.

Given this, the proposal would unduly dominate the outlook from No 28’s rear garden area and I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy DM35 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (2019); and to the Council’s Householder Planning and Design Supplementary Planning Document (2020), which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.

For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed.