Appeal 6000924

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: a) the character and appearance of the area; and b) the living conditions of occupiers of [address] (No 2a), with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal relates to a detached dwelling. It is situated on a suburban crescent that predominately comprises two storey, detached houses on one side and semi-detached bungalows on the other. Dwellings are mostly set away from the neighbouring property, particularly at first floor level, providing gaps between the houses and glimpses of the sky and trees to the rear. These gaps provide a sense of spaciousness that contributes positively to the area’s character and appearance.

Due to its two-storey height and substantial width, the proposed side extension would significantly close the gap between the appeal property and No 2a. While some of the criteria for side extensions contained in the Gedling Borough Council Design Code Framework (2024) ([name]) might be achieved, the appeal scheme would fail to provide one metre separation from No 2a along the full length of the proposal. Given the curvilinear alignment of the two dwellings and the elevated position of the appeal property relative to No 2a, the narrow gap that would be retained would not be discernible from the street and would create the impression of one continuous building frontage. Even accounting for its set back siting from the front elevation, slightly lower ridge height and hipped roof form, the proposed side extension would have an unduly dominant appearance, that would undermine the spacious quality of the crescent.

I accept that there are examples of side extensions on [address], [address] and [address]. I have not been provided with details of these other than their addresses, and as such am not aware of the material planning considerations in each case. Nevertheless, these examples do not represent the prevailing character of the immediate vicinity, nor do they all have the same orientation or elevated position as the appeal site relative to the neighbouring property. Some also demonstrate the harm that can arise from incongruous development. These examples therefore do not justify a proposal which, for the reasons given, would be harmful.

Consequently, the proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy 10 of the [name] - Part 1 Local Plan (2014) (Part 1 LP) and Policy 43 of Local Planning Document - Part 2 Local Plan (2018) (Part 2 LP) which require developments to make a positive contribution to the public realm and be in keeping with surrounding character in terms of height, built form and general design. In this regard, it would also be inconsistent with requirements to respond to local character in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

Even accounting for the narrow gap that would be retained between the proposed rear extension and No 2a, due to its close proximity and the difference in site levels, this element of the appeal scheme would be a dominant feature when appreciated from the ground floor window and patio area to the rear of the neighbouring property. The rear extension would also breach the 45-degree rule outlined in the [name] from the nearest ground floor window at No 2a. The 45-degree rule seeks to maintain an adequate outlook for occupiers of neighbouring properties and this breach further indicates that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect.

Given the modest size of 2a’s rear garden, the proposed rear extension would also have an unacceptable enclosing effect when experienced by occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling. While the existing garage would be removed, this would not outweigh the harm caused by the proposed rear extension, that would be taller than the garage and sited closer to rear elevation of No 2a. Consequently, the proposal would unacceptably reduce the quality of the outlook from No 2a.

Therefore, for the reasons given, and in the particular circumstances of this case, the appeal scheme would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No 2a, with particular regard to outlook. It would therefore conflict with Policies 32 and 43 of the Part 2 LP which require development proposals to not cause significant adverse impacts on the amenity of nearby occupiers. It would also conflict with the Framework which seeks a high standard of amenity for existing users.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.