Appeal 6001707

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], in particular regard to outlook; and the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and host building.

The rear elevations of 2 and [address] benefit from a wide outlook onto open countryside. The appeal property projects further to the rear and sits slightly higher than No 3, resulting in a minor reduction in outlook. This impact is presently mitigated by the cat-slide roof, which reduces the perceived height of the building along the boundary.

The proposal would infill the slope of the cat-slide roof, extending the depth of the first floor in line with the ground floor. Although a minor extension, the proposal would further restrict the outlook from No 3, introducing a further mass of built form which would extend a significant depth out from the rear elevation of No 3. This would result in a harmful sense of enclosure and exacerbate the reduced outlook to the neighbouring occupiers, in particular from their garden and rear windows.

For the above reasons, I conclude the proposal would result in harm to the outlook of the occupiers of [address]. The proposal is therefore in conflict with Policy PSP8 and PSP39 of the [site address] Local Plan Policies, Sites and Places Plan ([name] 2017) (PPSP) and the guidance contained within Appeal Planning Officer 6001707 the [name] (Adopted 2021) (SPD) which, amongst other things, seek to ensure development provides acceptable living conditions for neighbouring properties in regard to outlook.

The appeal property sits at the end of a residential cul-de-sac within a row of modest, link-detached dwellings. It shares a wall with [address] and a garage link with [address]. The surrounding properties are of varied designs, including bungalows and two-storey dwellings, with no consistent building or roofline to the front or rear elevations.

The rear elevation of the appeal property faces out onto open countryside and a public right of way. The first floor features a cat-slide roof with dormer windows set into the slope, contributing to the modest appearance of the dwelling. While the neighbouring property of No 3 does not replicate the cat-slide roof, its first-floor dormers are similarly set into the roofline, maintaining a comparable scale and character.

The proposal would replace the cat-slide roof with a flat roof at first-floor level and would extend the depth of the first floor to match the ground floor. Dormer windows would be replaced with standard windows, and the roofline would be slightly higher than existing. This would result in the appearance of a marginally larger rear elevation, however the extension would not project beyond the existing footprint and would retain the overall form of a two-storey dwelling. Although visible from the public right of way, the design would result in it more closely resembling the rear elevation of No 3 and would not appear unduly dominant or out of keeping with the surrounding properties, where there is no clearly defined style to the rear elevation.

For the above reasons, I conclude the proposal would not cause harm to the host property or the surrounding area. The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy CS1 of the [site address] Local Plan Core Strategy (2006-2027), Policies PSP1 and PSP38 of the PPSP, the guidance contained within the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework, which, among other things, seek to ensure development is of a high quality design that responds to the local context of the area and host building.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.