Appeal 6000927

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposed outbuilding would adjoin No 5 [site address] , rather than the appeal property at No [site address] . While the officer report referred to effects on No [site address] , the plans and my site visit confirm the Council’s concerns relate to privacy afforded to the occupants of No 5. The appellant understands this to be the case. I am satisfied that there would be no prejudice in determining the appeal on this basis.

The appellant submitted additional photographs and amended plans with their appeal, including the provision of a 2m fence to the boundary with No 10 Westgate. However, the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and it is important that I consider the proposal that was before the Council and on which people’s views were sought. The Council has not had the opportunity to consult on the changes and determining the appeal on that basis would cause prejudice to interested parties. Hence, I have considered the proposal as originally submitted.

The appellant suggests the development could be built under permitted development rights, but no relevant class has been referred to1, nor has a certificate of lawfulness been provided. Planning permission has been sought and I must determine the appeal accordingly.

The Council’s refusal reason did not cite a specific planning policy that the proposal was considered to contravene. Nonetheless, its officer report referred to a number of policies contained within the Pendle Local Plan Part 1: [name] (CS) 2015, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Design Principles Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2009. These policies and documents were provided as part of the Council’s evidence and I have taken them into account in my decision. 1 As set out in The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to privacy.

Policy ENV2 of the CS, seeks to secure quality in design and conservation. The explanatory text to the policy indicates that it should be read in conjunction with the Council’s Design Principles SPD. The SPD provides guidance to limit the effects of householder development on existing residents. This includes avoiding windows that directly and inappropriately overlook an adjacent property and ensuring that outbuildings are designed and located to prevent a loss of amenity. Although predating the CS, it remains consistent with its aims and those of the Framework to secure good standards of design.

The appeal site comprises a 2-storey mid-terrace located in a residential area characterised by modest dwellings in small plots. It has a rear yard elevated to a height roughly consistent with the cill level of the terrace’s rear ground floor windows. The yard also extends behind the rear elevation of No 5. Although described as an outbuilding, the proposal would be physically attached to the rear of No 5 and would appear akin to a domestic extension. It would replace a dilapidated structure currently used to house a fuel tank.

The proposed development would provide a habitable space for the occupiers of No [site address] , with bi-fold doors facing the ground floor windows in the rear elevation of the single-storey rear extension belonging to No 10. The development would create an uncomfortably close relationship resulting in a direct loss of privacy for both the proposed development and the occupiers of No 10.

Even if a fence erected under permitted development rights could address the privacy concerns in relation to No 10, there would be nothing to require its implementation or retention in connection with the proposed development. I have explained above, that I cannot take into account the amended plan depicting a 2m fence on the boundary between the 2 properties, as there is no evidence before me to suggest that interested parties would not be prejudiced by this change. Neither is it clear whether a fence would in itself compromise the amenity afforded to the occupants of No 10. I am not therefore persuaded that a condition requiring a fence would meet the test of reasonableness in this context.

The proposed development would sit adjacent to the only ground floor window serving the kitchen/dining room of No 5. I accept that the use of the external yard by the occupants of No [site address] will already adversely affect the privacy of No 5, given that direct views into this window from the yard are possible.

Although the angle of view would be partly oblique, the width and full-height glazing in the side elevation of the proposed development would enable views into the kitchen window and vice versa. Although views into the kitchen window would not expose the whole room, the presence of the development and its glazing would heighten the perception of overlooking for the occupants of No 5.

The proposal would allow regular use of the building as an office or hobby room and the bi-fold doors would facilitate activity spilling out easily into the remaining yard area. Thus, although there would be no material change in use, the proposed development would increase activity that would further comprise the privacy afforded to the occupants of No 5. The proposal would render a poor privacy situation worse.

For these reasons, the proposal would fail to preserve the living conditions of adjacent occupiers, with particular regard to privacy. It would therefore conflict with Policy ENV2 of the CS and paragraph 135 of the Framework, which together seek to provide high standards of design and amenity for existing users. There would also be conflict with the SPD, as set out above.

The appeal site lies within the Barnoldswick Conservation Area (BCA), the significance of which is derived from its close-knit pattern of modestly scaled 2 and 3-storey buildings constructed in local stone. The proposed development would appear as a domestic extension in a residential setting, visible in short-range views from within and outside the BCA. The Council has not raised any concerns with regard to the design of the proposal and I see no reason to take a different view. I am satisfied that the proposal would preserve the character of the conservation area as a designated heritage asset. However, this matter is neutral in the planning balance. It would not outweigh the harm I have identified to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and thus it does not affect my findings.

It has not been demonstrated that the proposal would be the only way to improve the appearance of the rear yard.

The absence of objections does not indicate support for the proposal, or that it would be acceptable in planning terms. Concerns relating to the Council’s handling of the planning application are a matter for the parties.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.