Appeal 3375974

The appeal is dismissed.

In the interests of clarity, I have taken the description of development from the decision notice and the appeal form rather than the application form.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse by construction of additional storeys subject to limitations and

The Council concluded that, subject to consideration of relevant matters of prior approval, the proposal would comply with the limitations and conditions set out under Class AA of the GPDO, such that it would fall within the scope of such permitted development rights. On the evidence before me I see no reason to conclude differently. The Council has, however, raised concerns in respect of the effect of the development upon the external appearance of the host property and the amenities of the occupants of adjoining properties. My consideration of the appeal shall therefore focus on these matters.

In refusing the application, the Council cited policies of the [name] (CS), January 2012, and Places for Everyone (PfE), March 2024. However, the principle of the development is established by the GPDO, and the prior approval provisions does not require regard to be had to the development plan. I can therefore only have regard to any part of such policies that are relevant to an assessment of the effect of the proposal on amenity and the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.

I consider that the main issues in this appeal are the impact of the proposed development on: • the amenity of the occupants of 11, 12, 14 and [address], in respect of outlook; and • the external appearance of the dwellinghouse.

The appeal property is constructed close to the side boundary of [address] (No 11), projecting beyond its rear elevation and alongside a significant proportion of the rear garden. As such, the existing two storey dwelling is already seen by the occupiers of No 11.

The windows are positioned in the proposed extension to avoid overlooking and loss of privacy to the occupants of adjoining dwellings, including No 11. Nonetheless, the introduction of an additional storey would substantially increase any existing enclosing effect arising from the host property and would dominate views from the rear facing windows and from within the garden of No 11. Consequently, the proposal would create a visual intrusion to the extent that it would be overbearing and thereby detrimental to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 11.

The proposal would significantly increase the height of the existing dwelling which would increase the prominence of the appeal property when viewed from 12, 14 and [address]. However, given the separation distance between the front windows of those properties and the appeal dwelling, and noting that such properties look towards its narrowest part, I find that the relationship between the proposed development and those properties would be acceptable.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of the occupants of [address] by reason of its effect on outlook. In this regard, it would conflict with CS Policy L7 which seeks to ensure that development does not prejudice the amenity of the occupants of adjacent properties. It would also be contrary to the similar aims of SPD4: A Guide for [address] Extensions and Alterations (SPD4), February 2012, and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The appeal site is within a residential area, comprising two-storey detached and semi-detached dwellings of a similar height and which have hipped roofs and two storey bays that sit below eaves level.

Although extended, the existing two storey, detached dwelling takes the prevailing forms and facing materials of the locality, including two storey bays and hipped roofs. The height of the existing dwelling is also consistent with the surrounding houses. As such there is a general uniformity between the appeal property and the others within the street scene which influences how it appears.

On approach along [address] from [address], the raised ridge of the proposal would have an imposing presence and would appear distinctly at odds with the consistency and scale of the adjacent dwellings. Furthermore, the windows of the proposed additional storey would largely be above eaves level which would thereby contrast with the existing dwelling and its neighbours. For these reasons, the external appearance of the resulting building would harmfully undermine the cohesive appearance and rhythm of the street scene.

For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the external appearance of the dwellinghouse and the local area. It would, therefore, conflict with PfE Policy JP-P1 which requires development, amongst other things, to respect and acknowledge the character and identity of the locality. It would also conflict with the design aims set out in SPD4 and the Framework.

I appreciate the appellant’s wish to provide further living accommodation. Nonetheless, this does not alter the requirements of the legislation on which I must base my decision or justify the harm that I have identified.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.