Appeal 6001371

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: - the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties 10 and 14 Highgrove with particular regard to overlooking; and -the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

[site address] is a large, detached dwelling which borders the rear elevations of Nos 10,12 and 14 Highgrove to the rear and western side elevation. The property is elevated above the dwellings to the rear and at my site visit I observed that there is limited boundary vegetation to the rear site boundary. The proposal includes a part 2-storey, part single storey rear extension which would contain windows in the rear and side elevations.

The Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (SPD) states that for 2-storey rear extensions a minimum rear to rear windows distance of at least 20m should be retained and any side facing windows above ground level should be obscure glazed to prevent overlooking.

The first-floor side window would face the windowed rear elevation of 14 Highgrove and its rear garden, where it would result in opportunities for the overlooking of these spaces. Nonetheless, noting that this window serves a walk-in wardrobe, I am satisfied that this could be addressed through the imposition of a condition requiring that this window is obscurely glazed.

The Council states that there is an existing separation of approximately 21m between the rear elevations of the existing dwelling and 10 Highgrove, which accords with the minimum separation distances for rear-facing windows in the SPD. The proposed rear-facing windows would be sited approximately 18m from the rear elevation of No 10. This would fall below the minimum separation distance set down in the SPD. This shortfall, in combination with the elevated nature of the appeal property and the lack of screening from intervening vegetation, would result in a harmful level of overlooking of No 10 and its rear garden from the first-floor bedroom window which would go beyond existing and reasonable levels, resulting harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of this property.

The proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of 10 Highgrove through overlooking. Conflict thus arises with those aims of policy DE1 of the Local Plan (2017) (LP) which seek to ensure that development respects and enhances its surroundings. Conflict also arises with the SPD which seeks to ensure that extensions do not result in a material loss of amenity to neighbouring properties as a result of, amongst other matters, the erosion of privacy.

The property is a large, modern 2-storey detached red brick dwelling with a wide projecting gable and a hipped roof. Whilst there are subtle variations in dwelling designs within the cul-de-sac, including in fenestration and roof form, [address] is characterised by the similarity and cohesiveness of dwelling forms. Some of the properties within [address] have porches formed within a recess within or between projecting gables, however, pitched roof porches projecting beyond the principal elevation are not a characteristic of [address]. The consistency in the form of dwellings results in a pleasant, cohesive suburban character and appearance, to which the appeal property makes a positive contribution. The proposal includes a pitched roof porch to the front elevation.

The porch would be constructed in materials to match the host dwelling, would have a roof profile which would be consistent with the host property and would retain a clear separation between the porch and the bay window. Whilst sizeable, given the scale of the host dwelling the porch would not dominate the host dwelling. Given this, I am satisfied that no harm would arise to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Nonetheless, projecting pitched roof porches are not characteristic of the immediate surroundings and the porch would be readily apparent in street scene views where it would compromise the cohesiveness of the street scene, resulting in harm to the established character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would thus conflict with those aims of LP policy DE1 which seek to ensure that development respects and enhances its surroundings and positively contribute towards the local identity and character of an area.

Reference is made to developments at [address] and 14 Highgrove. There is limited information regarding these developments before me, nonetheless, they do not appear to include a projecting porch and there is no indication that they had a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. These developments do not therefore weigh in favour of the proposal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.