Appeal 6001119

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon (a) the living conditions of occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook and light, and b) the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

The host dwelling is a traditional cottage within a terrace of similar dwellings, albeit the adjoining cottage to the south, [address], is set perpendicular, extending beyond the rear elevation of [site address] by a considerable length. At the rear, both of these properties have lean-to style projections at ground floor, again at a right angle to each other, which share a degree of overlap. The lean-to at [address] has two roof lights. The upper floor elevation of [address] which runs along the shared boundary with [site address] , contains two windows, a smaller obscure glazed window, and a larger unobscured window.

The proposal would extend over the existing ground floor lean-to extension at [site address] , albeit it would be set in from the northern edge. The proposed extension would maintain the eaves height of [site address] , but the ridge height would be set lower.

The submissions indicate that the larger, non-obscured window within the upper floor of [address] serves the landing, and that this is the only window serving the stairway.

This landing window is positioned close to the rear elevation of [site address] and so although the proposed first floor extension would project only as far as the existing ground floor lean-to, it would extend fully across this landing window and beyond, separated by a distance of approximately 1.0m. Albeit part of this window sits above the eaves height of [site address] , the side wall and sloping roof of the proposed extension would fill the view from this window at close quarters.

Non-habitable room windows such as those serving a landing, are not afforded the same level of protection as habitable room windows. This is recognised within the Council’s Housing Supplementary Planning Document, November 2010. However, while not serving a habitable room, it is a window that occupiers of [address] will pass regularly, and it is one which presently affords an open outlook over the gardens of neighbouring properties and beyond, as well as providing natural light to the stairway and landing.

Given the extent to which this window would be enclosed by the side wall and roof of the proposed extension, and at such close quarters, it would be a considerable contrast to the existing outlook from this window, to the extent that it would be oppressive, even for a non-habitable room window. It would also reduce the amount of natural light available to the landing and stairway, making this a darker space. It would constitute an unneighbourly form of development, harmful to the living conditions of occupiers of [address].

While there would also be some loss of natural light to a roof light serving the kitchen of [address], this room appears to be served by a further rooflight and window, and so this would not amount to a significant loss.

Nevertheless, the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook and light. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with policy DEV5 of the Eden Local Plan 2014 – 2032 (LP), which requires that new development protects the amenity of existing residents.

This traditional cottage and its neighbours are modestly sized, and given their perpendicular arrangement, [site address] and [address] share a close physical relationship at the rear. While both properties have been extended in the corner where they meet, these extensions are only single storey, and the lean-to roof design ensures that these existing extensions appear subordinate.

The proposed first floor extension would provide a generously sized bathroom. While the ridge line of the proposal would be set down from the host property, the projecting gable would extend across much of the rear elevation of the cottage and so it would not appear subordinate to it. Further, as a result of its projection and proximity to the rear elevation of [address], with only a narrow gap retained, it would appear cramped in this corner position, overly large for the available space. Consequently, it would appear incongruous and unsympathetic to its context.

The use of materials consistent with the terrace would do little to address this incongruity. Albeit positioned to the rear of these terraces, this incongruity would be clearly visible to occupiers of neighbouring properties.

For these reasons, the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the area. The proposal would conflict with LP policy DEV5, insofar as it requires, that new development shows a clear understanding of the form and character of the district’s built and natural environment, complementing and enhancing the existing area, and reflecting the existing street scene through use of appropriate scale, mass, form, layout, high quality architectural design and use of materials.

Paragraph 63 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that in the context of establishing housing need, the needs of differing groups should be assessed, including people with disabilities. Paragraph 96 of the Framework requires that planning decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places, by enabling and supporting healthy lives.

The description of the development refers to the provision of bathroom facilities to improve the safety and comfort for a disabled persons dwelling. The existing plans show that bathroom facilities are presently located downstairs, while the proposal would create a large bathroom upstairs. The appeal submissions indicate that the lack of a first-floor bathroom presents ongoing difficulties for the appellant’s health and well-being, and that the proposal would allow the appellant to remain living independently.

No further explanation of these personal circumstances is provided. From the available evidence, I cannot be certain that the appeal scheme is the only way in which these needs could be met, having regard to the size of the proposed extension, or the use and configuration of internal space. This limits the weight I can afford to this matter in favour of the appeal scheme.

I am also advised that the proposed works would facilitate essential maintenance to address damp and mould issues exacerbated by the unusual layout between the two cottages. However, again, I cannot be certain that the appeal scheme is the only way to achieve this and so this carries very limited weight in favour of the proposal.

While interested parties have expressed a range of other concerns, I note that these matters were considered where relevant by the Council at the application stage and did not form part of the reason for refusal, which I have dealt with in the assessment above. [name] can understand the concerns of interested parties, there is no compelling evidence before me that would lead me to come to a different conclusion to the Council on these other matters.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under the Equality Act 2010. However, the harm caused by the appeal scheme outweighs its benefits, including in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with protected characteristics, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons and fostering good relations between them and others.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole, and there are no other material considerations, including the Framework, which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. For these reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.