Appeal 6001010

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description of the proposal as set out in the Council's Decision Notice, which is more accurate than that used in the application form. I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced as a result.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of number [address] (No. 3) in respect of outlook and light.

The site consists of a detached chalet bungalow set deep into its plot. No. 3 is on the plot immediately adjoining the appeal site and has a similar siting. This means that both properties have long front gardens and relatively short private rear amenity spaces.

Amongst other things, the proposal seeks to erect a rear extension to the appeal property. This would have a pitched, hipped roof and would be set further back than an existing lean-to extension. The roof of the rear extension would only breach the plotted 45-degree line by a marginal amount at worst. Outlook from the rear windows of No. 3, particularly at ground floor level, is already limited by the existence of a rear outbuilding.

That said, the rear extension would have a roof ridge height almost as tall as the existing dwelling, and would project out for some distance to the rear. As such, it would result in a large mass of roofscape, located relatively close to the boundary of No. 3. As a result, the proposal would appear excessively dominant and overbearing when viewed from the rear yard of this property.

The appellant has provided a sun path analysis, where the effects of the proposal have been modelled on the longest and shortest days of any given year. This shows that in December much of the rear amenity area of No. 3 would be overshadowed throughout the day.

Some shadowing would be caused by existing structures, such as the side boundary wall. Even so, the sun path modelling only includes shadowing that would occur if the proposal were to be built out. No analysis has been provided to show the existing shadowing situation. Consequently, the proposal may well significantly worsen the level of sunlight available to the limited private amenity space of No. 3, for example in the afternoons of winter months.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 3 in respect of outlook and light. It follows that there would be conflict with policy DE3 of the Torbay Local Plan, adopted December 2015, which requires no undue impacts upon the living conditions of neighbouring uses.

The proposal would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, and would improve the accommodation within the host property. However, these factors do not overcome my concerns. For the reasons given above, I have found conflict with the Development Plan, read as a whole. No material considerations have been shown to have sufficient weight to warrant a decision other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.