Appeal 6000050

While there are nearby examples of properties that have been subject of modest upward extensions, when viewed from the gently sloping [address] (the road), there remains a pleasing general consistency between the height of the road and the individual properties addressing it.

Although the increase to the ridge height of the dwelling on the appeal site would not be substantial, the property would become materially and obviously taller than both adjacent properties in the terrace. Consequently, and even though the proposed external materials would relate well to the host dwelling, the development would disrupt and harmfully reduce the regularity and sense of uniformity of development within the nearby area.

Although there are other examples of second-floor, flat-roofed, dormer extensions in the area, the proposed rear extension would be almost as high as the proposed ridge of the host dwelling. It would also project close to the far edge of the existing rear outrigger. As such, and whether or not it would be visible from publicly accessible land, from the rear gardens of both the host dwelling and neighbouring properties, it would appear as a bulky and dominant addition to the rear of the building, and it would be incongruous with other more modest and simple rear outriggers within the same terrace.

The proposal would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the area, and in this respect, it would be contrary to the policies cited in the decision notice. Issue – effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (number 40), with particular regard to light and outlook

The upward extension to the rear outrigger would be visible through the rear-facing windows in the main part of the house at number 40. However, this part of the development would be set back from the shared boundary between the properties. As such, and notwithstanding the proposed increase in height to this part of the building, the occupiers of number 40 would retain a reasonable outlook over and above their rear garden through their rear-facing windows.

The separation distance between the proposed rear extension and the windows in number 40 would also be sufficient to prevent any harmful reduction in daylight to this neighbouring house. Furthermore, even in the summer months when the sun is highest in the sky, the evidence indicates that the rear of the house at number 40 is in shade for most of the day. As such, and given that the development would project no further back into the site than the existing rear outrigger, any reduction in sunlight into the house at number 40 would be very small in extent and limited to the early morning only.

The scheme would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of number 40 with particular regard to light and outlook. In this respect, it would accord with the policies cited in the decision notice.

Given the size of the scheme, any economic and social benefits that would arise would be small.

Notwithstanding my findings in respect of the second issue, the scheme would be contrary to the development plan as a whole and nothing outweighs this.