Appeal 6000163

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s second reason for refusal refers to the effects of the proposal on numbers 59, 65 and [address] (Nos. 59, 65 and 67). However, number [address] (No. 61) adjoins No. 59 and is closer to the site. The appellant has commented on the effects to this property. I shall therefore consider No. 61 as well as the other properties in my assessment.

With their grounds of appeal, the appellant submitted a Daylight, Sunlight, and Overshadowing Assessment (DSO). The Council has commented on this and so I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced by my taking it into account.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area, and • the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 59, 61, 65 and 67, in respect of outlook, light and privacy.

The area consists largely of semi-detached and detached properties, with a range of sizes and designs. Most are two-storeys in height with front bay windows, large roofs and subservient garages and extensions, giving a traditional, suburban appearance. The appeal site consists of a chalet bungalow within a relatively wide and deep plot. Although there are few other chalet bungalows hereabouts, its design broadly reflects its suburban surroundings. The proposal seeks two-storey extensions to the side and rear of the property. It also proposes roof alterations including raising its height and adding a rear dormer, the removal of a front bay window, and other changes.

[address] Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), adopted May 2015, advises that the overall shape, size and position of extensions should not dominate the existing house. Instead, they should be designed to harmonise with the original appearance of the property. Elements of the proposal, such as the width of the side extension, would meet some of the guidelines of the SPD.

Even so, the proposal as a whole would considerably change the appearance of the dwelling. Being both taller and much deeper, the proposed extensions would not be subservient to the host property. Together with the roof changes including to the ridge height, the proposal would result in the dwelling having an excessive bulk, with little articulation to break up its mass. The proposal would overwhelm the existing house, leading to the loss of its original form and character. As such, it would conflict with the advice of the SPD.

The extent, shape and position of the proposed windows would be excessively large, with no coherent pattern and an unusual number of Juliet balconies, thus appearing out of place. The removal of the front bay window feature would further add to the incongruous appearance of the proposal. The rear dormer window would not be prominent in public views and would be below the proposed ridgeline. Nevertheless, it would appear large compared to the windows at lower levels, with little space beneath it, and would be positioned awkwardly to one side of the roof. These aspects would also conflict with the SPD.

For the above reasons, the proposal would fail to reflect the form or design of the existing dwelling and nearby properties, appearing out of place and harmfully contrasting with the traditional suburban appearance of the area. Changes to the design of the windows to rectify some of these concerns, as suggested by the appellant, would go beyond the scope of a planning condition.

Nearby number [address] is another chalet bungalow. It has been extended and altered. That said, these changes have retained its essential chalet bungalow shape, with the side extension for example having a degree of differentiation and subservience from the rest of the dwelling. The development there does not appear to have involved the same extent of alterations for instance to fenestration. As such, I can draw little comparison between that property and the proposal before me.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would thus conflict with policy LP1 of the Council’s Local Plan, adopted July 2018, which requires development to have an acceptable scale, bulk and massing, and a high quality of design, assessed against the SPD. For the same reasons, it would conflict with the similar requirements of policy D4 of the London Plan, adopted March 2021, and of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

Either side of the appeal site are pairs of two-storey, semi-detached dwellings at Nos. 59/61 and 65/67. To avoid an unacceptable sense of enclosure, the SPD advises that, for detached properties, single-storey extensions of no more than four metres in length are usually acceptable. Longer extensions may be acceptable, depending on the circumstances of the site. These include relevant distances to boundaries and properties, as well as the height and layout of a proposal.

Nos. 61 and 65 directly adjoin either side of the site. There is no dispute that the rear extensions would extend beyond the four-metre limit of the SPD, and at a height above single storey level. The proposal would result in a large, tall expanse of built form projecting well beyond the rear elevation of the existing dwelling. This would be particularly close to the boundary with No. 65. As such, notwithstanding other rear extensions nearby, the large height and mass of the proposal would have a harmfully dominating, enclosing and intrusive impact on the occupiers of Nos. 61 and 65.

The SPD requires proposals not to cause any significant loss of daylight or sunlight to the habitable rooms or gardens of neighbouring properties. The Building Research Establishment (BRE) standards are used to assess such impacts. The BRE standards focus on windows where daylight is required, rather than, for example, windows serving bathrooms or toilets.

Nos. 61 and 65 have windows in their side elevations. The DSO finds that the proposal would have negative impacts on daylight to some of these windows, with major adverse effects to a downstairs side window within No. 65. This is the centre of the Council’s concerns in respect of light.

However, the evidence before me is that the relevant window is obscure glazed and appears to serve a bathroom or similar use. Other windows within Nos. 61 and 65 would have only minor adverse daylight effects, and also serve bathrooms, or are secondary windows. The DSO confirms that the proposal would accord with the 45-degree line test to either property. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have an unduly detrimental effect on daylight, sunlight or overshadowing to Nos. 61 and 65.

The proposal includes a first-floor study which would have its sole window facing towards a side upstairs window within No. 65. However, this window is obscure glazed, frustrating direct views from the proposed study. The proposal would not therefore result in any undue overlooking to No. 65, thus maintaining its occupiers’ privacy.

I have also considered the effects of the proposal on Nos. 59 and 67 in respect of light, outlook and privacy, as these properties are referred to in the reason for refusal. However, given the greater distance of the site and proposal from these dwellings, I am satisfied that no unacceptable harm would result to these properties’ occupiers.

Nevertheless, for the reasons given above, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 61 and 65 in respect of outlook. It would therefore conflict with Local Plan policy LP8, which requires that the amenity for occupants of adjoining properties is protected, including their outlook. It would also conflict with the similar requirements of the Framework.

For the reasons given, there would be conflict with the Development Plan, read as a whole. No material considerations have been shown to warrant a decision other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.