Appeal 6001311

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my site visit I observed that the conservatory had been demolished.

There is no dispute between the parties as to the acceptability of the porch to the side elevation of the appeal property. Based on my observations at my site visit I have no reason to reach a different view.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property at No [address] (No 28) with particular regard to outlook.

No [site address] comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. [address] is characterised by linear residential development with properties in the vicinity of the appeal site setback from the road behind areas of hardstanding on a similar alignment.

The proposal would introduce a single storey extension close to the shared boundary with No 28. Along this shared boundary is a high solid fence. Consequently, the outlook from the rear windows of this neighbouring property is already impacted to some degree.

The Council asserts that the impact of the proposal would be exacerbated by its lower position relative to the appeal site. [name] did observe some differences in site levels, the difference is not significant. Nevertheless, the eaves of the proposed extension would protrude above the fence, and the depth of the extension would protrude significantly beyond the rear elevation of No 28. Furthermore, the ridge height of the roof would sit just below existing first floor windows.

The combination of the height and depth of the proposed development proximate to the shared boundary would result in an overbearing feature that would be materially harmful to the outlook for the occupiers of No 28. This would be particularly so from the ground floor rear facing windows and the rear garden of this neighbouring property.

For the reasons stated above, I find that the proposal would materially harm the living conditions of No 28. This draws the proposal into conflict with Policy SP7 of the Tendring Local Plan: Section 1 (2021) and Policy SPL3 of the Tendring Local Plan: Section 2 (2022). Collectively, and amongst other things, they seek development to be designed to ensure adequate outlook for future and existing residents and to not have a materially damaging impact on the amenity of occupiers of nearby properties. It would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The appellant advances that the property could be extended under the provisions of permitted development, presumably under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) and that its height would be higher than that of the appeal scheme. Whilst it is not disputed that the property could be extended under permitted development rights, the precise details of which are not before me, nor is a Certificate of Lawfulness for due consideration. Moreover, the appellant indicates that such an extension would not achieve what the appellant desires. Therefore, I do not have a realistic fall-back position before me to add positive weight in favour of the proposal.

Interested parties have expressed a wide range of concerns including, but not limited to, the following: loss of light, disturbance during construction works including neighbouring foundations, impact on a tree. I note that these matters were considered 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] am dismissing the appeal there is no need for me to consider these matters further.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate a decision should be made contrary to this decision. The appeal is therefore dismissed.