Appeal 6001624

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with regard to light and outlook; and • protected species.

Paired with [address], the appeal site at [site address] comprises a two-storey semi-detached house in a residential area which has an existing rear and side extension and a conservatory to the rear. The proposed development would replace the conservatory with a single storey extension.

The proposed extension would extend approximately 4 metres from the rear elevation of the existing dwelling and would be single storey with a very shallow pitched roof. The proposed extension would run across the width of the property from the shared boundary with No 5 to the side wall of the existing side and rear extension.

The Council’s Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document 2018 (SPD) includes Figure 18 on the 45-degree rule for single storey extensions. It expects that if a 45-degree line were drawn from the centre point of the nearest adjacent ground floor window of a habitable room on the original rear wall of the neighbouring property, the proposed extension would not infringe that line. The SPD seeks to protect living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and as such, development that does not comply may be considered to have an unreasonable effect on them, but individual site circumstances should be considered.

The proposed extension would project beyond and include the footprint of the existing conservatory. The existing conservatory breaches the 45-degree line, and the proposed extension would also infringe the 45-degree line.

While the existing conservatory has significant amounts of glass it is nevertheless a bulky structure. The roof of the proposed extension would be lower than the existing conservatory’s roof at its highest point. The orientation of the properties is such that the proposed extension would be on the northern elevation and therefore any additional effect on either daylight or sunlight levels would be limited. With regard to outlook, the proposed roof design and lower maximum height would limit any effect. The existing conservatory is already close to the close boarded boundary fence. Consequently, the proposed extension would not be of a scale that would be overbearing or oppressive and would not result in a detrimental effect on outlook.

Notwithstanding that the proposed development would not accord with the SPD, I conclude that the proposed development would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with regard to light and outlook. Therefore, it would not be contrary to Policy BE3 of the Warwick District Local Plan (adopted 2017) (Local Plan) which seeks to avoid any unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of nearby uses and residents as a result of development.

The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) impose a duty on me to consider whether protected species would be affected by the development and if so whether associated mitigation measures would be effective.

Requirements for surveys should be proportionate. Warwickshire Council Ecological Services has advised that there are records of bats in the area, the surrounding habitat provides roosting and foraging opportunities and potential roosting features for bats are visible. While the proposed development would not have a significantly greater footprint than the existing conservatory, the proposed development would both remove the existing conservatory and abut the existing building which would have the potential to have a detrimental effect on a protected species at roof level.

Paragraph 99 of the Office of the [name] 06/2005 states it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent they may be affected by a proposal, is established before planning permission is granted. Surveys can be carried out under conditions attached to a planning permission, but this should only be done in exceptional circumstances. No preliminary ecological survey has been provided indicating the presence or absence of bats and/or any appropriate mitigation measures. Furthermore, there is no evidence before me suggesting there are exceptional circumstances in this case.

Although the appellant has offered to commission a brief ecological appraisal, the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and there are no provisions for amendments or further documents to be submitted. It is important that what is considered at appeal is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Council and by interested parties at the application stage.

Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on protected species. As such there is conflict with Policy NE2 of the Local Plan which seeks to ensure that development likely to impact rare endangered or priority species will be subject to ecological assessment. Additionally, this would be contrary to the precautionary approach set out in Circular 06/2005, section 15 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), and the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. I give this matter significant weight.

I note the appellant’s assertion that the proposed extension would replace the existing conservatory with a high quality thermally efficient living space in a sustainable way by using the existing developed footprint. This would be a benefit of the proposed development, to which I have given moderate weight. The appellant indicates that these benefits can be achieved without causing harm to the occupiers of the neighbouring property, which I have found to be the case, but this weighs neutrally in the planning balance.

In conclusion, notwithstanding my findings on living conditions and the benefits outlined by the appellant, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on protected species. Accordingly, the proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.