Appeal 6000832

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No 4), with particular regard to light, outlook, and visual impact.

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 2), a semi-detached dwelling situated in a predominantly residential area consisting of recently-constructed dwellings. No 2 is attached to No 4, which is a mirror image of No 2.

No 4 has 2 rear-facing windows at ground-floor level, which form part of a set of patio doors which serve a living area. These doors lead onto a short patio, beyond which is No 4’s rear garden.

The Council have calculated that the proposed single-storey rear extension would breach the 45 degree guideline (Stage 1) as set out in [name] of the SPD1. That this breach would occur has not been disputed by the appellant. However, as the proposed extension would be constructed to the north of the above-mentioned windows at No 4, any loss of light towards these windows would likely be limited. My findings on this matter are in line with paragraph 14 of [name] of the SPD, which provides that, amongst other things, for extensions which lie to the north of a neighbouring window, no overshadowing will be caused.

The proposed rear extension would project beyond the rear elevation of No 2 by approximately 4 metres, stopping considerably short of the rear elevation of the existing garage present to the side of No 2’s rear garden. With a maximum height of approximately 3.6 metres, even taking account of its mono-pitch roof design, it would rise significantly above the height of the existing fence sited along the common boundary between the 2 plots comprising No 2 and No 4. As such, it would constitute a structure of significant scale and massing, which would be 1 Sustainable Design Supplementary Planning Document (December 2015 ([name] updated 2019)) situated in close proximity to No 4’s rear windows mentioned above. Consequently, it would harmfully obscure a portion of the available outlook from these windows. The siting of the proposed rear extension so close to these windows would make the affected living area much less pleasant to use.

An existing garage building is present to the side of No 4’s rear garden, which contributes to the sense of enclosure experienced by users of that garden. Due to its depth, height, and siting very close to the common boundary, the proposed extension would constitute an overly-dominant and overbearing addition in views from No 4’s garden. This would unduly exacerbate the sense of enclosure referred to above. This would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 4.

Mention has been made of precedent examples in Lichfield, including at the Darwin Park estate. However, as no details have been provided, the degree to which these examples are comparable with the proposed development is unclear. The examples cited do not change my findings on this main issue.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 4, with particular regard to outlook and visual impact. It would conflict with the 2nd bullet point of Core Policy 3 of the Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy 2008 – 2029 (adopted

(LPS) which provides that, amongst other things, development should protect the amenity of residents, and with the 5th bullet point of Policy BE1 of the LPS which provides that, amongst other things, development will be permitted where it can be clearly and convincingly demonstrated that it will have a positive impact on amenity.

The conduct of the Council during the processing of the planning application is not a matter that I can assess in the context of a planning appeal. The lack of objections from the occupiers of No 4 is a neutral matter, as there could be any number of reasons why representations were not submitted at application stage. The letter submitted from [name] refers to property rights. It does not mention the planning merits of the proposed development. Rather, the letter highlights that any consent is given subject to planning permission having been obtained. None of these matters alters my findings on the main issue above.

The benefits arising from the enlarged and improved accommodation at No 2 would be mainly private in nature. Any public benefits would be limited and localised.

I have no reason to doubt that an extension of up to 3 metres in depth could be constructed via permitted development rights, in the event that this appeal is dismissed. However, the proposed development would be over a metre deeper than that allowed for by Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO2. As a result, such development would be unlikely to be more harmful than the proposed development under appeal, in relation to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 4. 2 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended)

Reference has been made to the erection of an extension of up to 6 metres in depth via the GPDO. As this right is subject to a prior approval procedure, the outcome of any prior approval application would not be certain. Additionally, no evidence of a prior approval application has been provided. Hence, it has not been demonstrated that there is a greater than a theoretical possibility that this right could be exercised.

Little weight is given to these matters in support of the proposed development. Overall, taking account of the requirement in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that planning decisions should ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users, none of the relevant material considerations indicate that this appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.