Appeal 6001023

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 issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of Numbers 27 and [address] (No 27 and No 31) with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal building is a two-storey dwelling attached to No 27. It has been extended at ground floor to the rear, which the proposal would sit atop. This extension abuts the shared boundary. There is a walkway gap between the appeal building and No 31. Due to the proximity of the proposal to neighbouring gardens and rear windows, the scheme would be visible to occupiers of both Nos 27 and 31.

Whilst it would not increase the footprint of the appeal building, the proposed development would present a high sided, sheer and featureless elevation to the immediate rear of No 27 and the part of the garden closest to the rear of the house. Users of this space would experience an increased sense of enclosure, unacceptably harming enjoyment thereof. The wider garden appears to be is well used and is modestly scaled, which would accordingly feel smaller by virtue of the scheme, should users then have to relocate any sitting out space.

Although there would be an increase in height and bulk to the resultant building and the scheme would bring it perceptibly closer to the boundary, the current separation distance between Nos 29 and 31 means the overall proposal would not harmfully impinge on the users of the garden to No 31. Their outlook would remain largely unchanged given the surrounding built up context.

This would however be a lack of harm and insufficient to outweigh the adverse effects the scheme would bring to bear on the occupiers of no 27 in the manner I have described. This would lead to conflict with Policies A1 and A9 of the Gloucester City Plan 2023, Policies SD4 and SD14 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and [name] 2017, The Council’s Home Extension Guide 2008 and the relevant guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that the living conditions of the occupiers of properties are protected.

The Council state that the proposal would not have an impact on the light perceived by the occupiers within the building and garden of No 27 based on the daylight assessment submitted and I have no reason to disagree with their conclusion. This however does not equate to a lack of harm to outlook since they are separate matters. Additionally, the appellant has raised concerns with the Council’s handling of the application and that they had not conducted their own surveys to support points raised. However, I am satisfied that the evidence and officer report submitted is sufficient to express their objections to the appeal scheme. Additional information is not required or possible during the householder planning appeal process.

I appreciate that there is a familial need for the proposal, however, it is not sufficiently clear that the proposed development is the only way of meeting the increased internal space requirements. I therefore attach moderate weight to this personal need. This would be insufficient to make the scheme acceptable given I ascribe the greater weight to the potential harm I have found (which would be significant and enduring) and the subsequent development plan conflict.

For the reasons given above the appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan and I have been given no compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced, to deviate therefrom. I therefore 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.