Appeal 6000531

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address] (No.59) and No [address] (No. 55) with particular regard to outlook and light.

The appeal site comprises the plot of a detached dwelling located within an area which is characterised by other detached dwellings in similar sized plots. The appeal property is one of a group of four dwellings located between two spurs off [address] and which is adjoined to the north by an open area of grass and trees.

The group of properties in which the appeal site is located comprises 2no. two-storey dwellings with gabled roofs and 2 no. steeply pitched 1.5 storey dwellings with the upper floors served by dormers. Although more variety exists in the wider context of the appeal site, the buildings in the immediate vicinity predominantly comprise these two styles of dwelling. As such there is a significant degree of consistency of built form nearby which lends a pleasing, regular character to the area.

It is proposed to demolish the existing dwelling and car port at the appeal site and replace it with a new detached dwelling with integral garage. The replacement dwelling would have a larger footprint than the existing dwelling and would project further into the front and rear garden areas with two storey high development.

Presently, the building line of the group of four dwellings in which the appeal site is located, broadly follows the curve in the footpath to the front of these plots so that the existing appeal property is set back from No. 55 and forward of No. 59. Although, overall, the proposed dwelling would not project significantly forward of the porch and car port of No.55, these elements are single storey and small in scale. The two-storey projecting gables of the proposed dwelling would sit forward of the main two storey part of No. 55. Furthermore, due to the proposed siting and footprint of the dwelling, it would be significantly further north than No. 59 at two storeys, than is currently the case.

Consequently, the proposed dwelling would appear overly prominent and incongruous in its context. Furthermore, because of the proposed siting, a large portion of the flank wall of the proposed dwelling would be visible from vantage points to the west of the appeal site which would appear excessively imposing and bulky. The existing vegetation would provide a somewhat softening effect; however, it would not fully screen the dwelling, the impact of which would be readily apparent on approach from the public highway.

The proposed design would utilise two front facing gables and the eaves line would be higher than both the existing dwelling and those in the immediate vicinity. Although the flat top of the ‘crown roof’ would not be fully visible from street level, because of its overall mass, the design would nevertheless appear excessively bulky and imposing in this context and would jar unacceptably with the prevailing form of development in the area. I recognise that there are examples of similar roof forms in the wider context, however these are generally in amongst groups of dwellings of a similar design and as such they do not appear incongruous in their locality.

The proposed dwelling would extend at two storeys for the majority of the width of the plot, in contrast with the prevailing form of development in the area whereby dwellings are generally more generously separated, often by single storey structures. As a result, the proposed dwelling would appear cramped within its plot.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy GEN 1 of the Hart Local Plan (Replacement) 1996 – 2006 [name] (adopted April 2009 (LP), Policy NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy and Sites) 2032 (adopted April 2020) and Policy 10 of the Fleet Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2032 ([name] 2019). Together these seek to ensure that development proposals achieve a high standard of design and are in keeping with local character in terms of scale, design, massing and prominence. Living conditions [address]

The Council’s “Planning Technical Advice Note – Privacy, Daylight and Sunlight: The 45 and 25 [name]” document explains that in normal circumstances, no development should intrude over a line drawn at 45o in the horizontal plane from the midpoint of the nearest window of a habitable room.

The appellant accepts that the proposed dwelling would result in a minor incursion of these guidelines in respect of the first-floor dormer window at No.59. Given the mass and depth of the proposed dwelling it is likely that it would result in a minor loss of light to this window, despite being to the northeast and the presence of trees nearby.

The southwest elevation of the proposed dwelling is slightly further away from the boundary with No 59 than the existing dwelling. However, because of its position significantly forward of the front elevation of 59, it would be highly visible from both the ground and first floor windows on the front elevation. Because of its overall mass and the expanse of the side elevation, the dwelling would be unduly imposing in these views and consequently, would have a harmful effect on the outlook from these windows. [address]

The appellant accepts that the proposed dwelling would breach the 45o line, in respect of the ground floor dining room of No.55. The proposed dwelling would be sited directly adjacent to the boundary in relatively close proximity to the dining room window. Even though the window is relatively large, comprising full height glazed doors, it is the only light source for this room. Given the mass of the proposed dwelling and its proximity to the window, combined with its orientation to the southwest, it would result in a loss of light to this window.

The relatively featureless, flank wall of the dwelling would be in close proximity to the dining room window and would be prominent in views from it. It would create a sense of enclosure when experienced from inside this room and when utilising the adjacent patio. As such the proposed dwelling would have an unacceptably overbearing impact upon the occupiers of No.55.

Even though the southeast corner of the proposed dwelling would only project a modest amount beyond the footprint of the existing garage, this is single storey with a flat roof and as such the impact of the proposed dwelling would be far greater.

As such I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.59 and No. 55 with particular regard to outlook and light. Therefore, it would conflict with Policy GEN1 of the LP which seeks to ensure that development proposals avoid any material loss of amenity to adjoining residential uses.

I note that during the course of the application, the appellant had been led to believe that it would be approved. [name] recognise their frustrations in this regard, I must nevertheless consider the appeal on its own merits.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations which indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.