Appeal 6001248

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council assessed development at the site for two schemes under one application and refused permission for both within one decision notice. The appellant has appealed the Council’s decision. I have examined the evidence before me and considered the proposals under both Proposal 1 for a two-storey side extension and single storey rear extension, and Proposal 2 for a single storey side extension and two storey rear extension.

The main issues for both are the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the local area and effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants by way of sense of overbearing and loss of light.

The appeal site is located in a planned housing estate of pairs of semi-detached and terraces of two storey houses that leads into a cul-du-sac. Number [address] to the junction with Crossways and [name]. The appeal site sits perpendicular to Number 75 [name].

With regards to Proposal 1, the extension would extend the dwelling to the side and rear by virtue of a two-storey side extension and single storey extension to the rear to provide improved living space for the occupants. This extension would add considerable bulk and mass to the dwelling as a whole, especially the two-storey side extension. The continuous ridge line and width that would be added as a two storey extension would not appear visually subordinate to the host dwelling. Therefore, it would not respond positively to its original character.

Moreover, the proportionality of the dwelling would be compromised, and it would appear imbalanced in its relationship as a pair of semi’s, further emphasising its discordant appearance.

With regards to Proposal 2, a single storey extension and two storey rear extension is proposed. This would also add significant bulk and mass to the dwelling. It would not achieve a satisfactory visual and architectural relationship with the host dwelling appearing out of scale and proportion with the original dwelling. Therefore, it would not respect its original character and distinctiveness,

To conclude on this main issue, the proposals would therefore not meet the design expectations of policies SP6 and HO8 of the CDLP and the same aims included within the [name].

The rear garden of 75 [name] is a very small garden and backs onto the side garden of the appeal site. Proposal 1 would extend to the side of the appeal site and virtually fill all of the space to the side of the existing dwelling and across the width of the rear garden of 75. The outlook from the rear habitable room windows and the small garden would be onto a wide and reasonably high gable end. This would create a harmful overbearing effect on the living conditions of these occupants.

The single storey rear extension would extend close to the party boundary with 71 [name]. It would have a sloping roof over and whilst some brickwork would be seen from no 71’s aspect above the party boundary, I am not convinced that their outlook or living conditions would be adversely compromised.

With regards to Proposal 2, the extension would extend close to the party boundary with No 71, two storeys in height. A large mass of blank wall would run along the party boundary. From the rear perspective, the occupants of No 71 would be exposed to a high solid wall seen in very close quarters from habitable room windows. Therefore, given the extent of extension, its scale mass and bulk, they would experience a sense of overbearing from these windows.

The orientation of the extension would reduce some light levels into the neighbour’s garden from the west, and cause some overshadowing to the garden. However, this would be to a limited degree.

All things considered, the proposal would not meet the objectives of policies SP6 and HO8 or the CDLP and the [name] in their combines measures to protect residential amenity.

The appellant points to other dwelling layouts that they consider compared to the appeal site. I went to view these. From what I could see these were planned as part of the layout of the larger estate. They are part and parcel of the houses and also low level in their form. They do not compare to the proposal before me. Therefore, I attach limited weight to these examples.

They also comment on a new dwelling drawing comparisons to separation distances. That site is a new build dwelling and not the same circumstances as the appeal before me.

It would afford the appellant more internal space. Be that as it may, there is no compelling reason before me to overcome the harm I have identified.

The two proposals to extend the dwelling have been considered. I have viewed them both as harmful to local character and appearance and to the living conditions of the adjacent occupants.

Therefore, this leads me to conclude that the proposed development would lead to conflict with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.