Appeal 6001510

The appeal is dismissed.

The submitted site plan does not accurately depict the existing footprint of the property. However, I was able to identify the building and proposed works on site and assess the scheme using the elevation and floor plan drawings. Having regard to the Wheatcroft Principle1, I am satisfied no party has been prejudiced and that the discrepancy is not material to my findings. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the proposal as understood from the elevations/floor plans and observations on site.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: a) the character and appearance of the existing building and surrounding area; and, b) the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to daylight, sunlight and outlook.

The appeal concerns a property on a residential street characterised by a cohesive pattern of semi-detached post-war housing. Properties are uniformly arranged in short runs, with consistent building lines, modest front gardens, and driveways that give the area an open and orderly suburban character.

The dwellings typically feature brick and tile elevations, pitched tiled roofs, and simple, balanced façades that contribute to a strong sense of visual rhythm within 1 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd vs. Secretary of State for the Environment [JPL 1982] the streetscene. Whilst the appeal property has been extended to provide an attached garage to its side, its appearance and overall proportions accord with the established architectural language of the estate.

The proposed side extension would continue the existing roof form sideways at first floor level to align with the building line of the garage below. It would sit flush with the front and rear elevations. Although the adjoining property at No. 31 already introduces some visual discordance through its horizontal cladding, the proposal would exacerbate the imbalance between the pair. By substantially widening and increasing the mass at first floor, the extension would erode the symmetry and uniformity that contribute to the coherence of this part of the streetscape. The cat-slide roof and use of matching materials would not sufficiently mitigate the lack of subservience, and the resulting harm to the overall composition of the frontage would remain appreciable.

The proposed flat-roof dormer would extend across the full width of the enlarged roof at the rear, replacing the existing hipped dormer. While this would increase its overall scale, dormers of a comparable form are present within the wider area, and the proposal would not appear unduly prominent within the street scene, including views from [address]. Notwithstanding the findings identified above in relation to other elements of the scheme, the dormer itself would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the host property nor to the wider surrounding area.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the property and the surrounding area. It would conflict with Policy 10 of the [name] 1 Local Plan (ACS), and Policy DE1 and DE2 of the Land and Planning Policies - Local Plan Part 2 (LAPP) which, collectively and amongst other things, seek to ensure development proposals reinforce and enhance local characteristics and respect established scale, mass, and rhythm of development.

The proposed extension would project the first floor to the shared boundary with No. 27. The staggered building line created by the angled adjoining pairs of dwellings at this part of the street is such that the full extent and mass of the new side elevation would be in view along most of the rear garden boundary to No. 27. Given the modest size of the neighbouring plot and the absence of any separation distance from the extension to the boundary, the substantial increase in built form would appear unduly dominant and would give rise to an overbearing and harmful effect on the outlook from the neighbouring garden.

Furthermore, the northerly position of No. 27 relative to the proposed extension would result in a perceptible reduction in daylight and sunlight to its rear-facing windows and garden, thereby intensifying the sense of enclosure that neighbouring occupiers would experience. There is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the resulting impacts on daylight and sunlight would fall within acceptable limits. Even if an alternative window configuration were capable of being considered, such a revision would not materially alter the degree of overshadowing or light reduction to influence my overall conclusions on the harm arising.

For these reasons, the proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], particularly in respect of daylight, sunlight, and outlook. In this regard, the development would conflict with Policy 10 of the ACS and Policy DE1 of the LAPP, both of which, amongst other requirements, seek to ensure a high standard of amenity for neighbouring occupiers, including the provision of satisfactory arrangements for daylight, sunlight, and outlook.

The appellant refers to other developments in the surrounding area. I have taken these into account in terms of any influence on the character and appearance of the area so far as I am able to based on the information before me. However, I am not aware of the full circumstances of these other cases, and, in any event, each scheme must be considered and determined on its individual merits.

I understand the wishes of the appellant to maximise the living space within their existing property to better accommodate family needs. However, I do not consider that these personal circumstances provide sufficient justification to outweigh the harm I have identified.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the property and the surrounding area. I have also found that there would be harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property and, as such, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. No material considerations have been shown to have sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.