Appeal 6001844

The appeal is dismissed.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plans and accompanying details that the development comprises construction of a part single storey part two storey side extension. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling. It is located within an area which is residential in character and comprises semi-detached and detached properties of varying architectural styles and sizes, including bungalows, chalet bungalows and 2-storey dwellings. While there is variety in the built form, buildings generally do not extend the full width of plots, with broadly consistently sized spaces between buildings. This gives a pleasant rhythm to the street scene.

The proposed development is a side extension which would extend to the shared boundary with No 73 and the full depth of the 2-storey element of the existing dwelling. As such, it would represent a substantial addition to the property.

The proposal would continue the ridge height, roof pitch and architectural style of the existing dwelling and Nos 63-69 to the west. However, by extending the full depth of the existing dwelling, the proposed extension would not be read as subservient to the existing property. As a result, the appeal property would appear unduly large, and therefore prominent, compared to the adjacent properties of the same style.

Moreover, by reason of its width, the proposed development would erode the space between the appeal property and No 73. Consequently, the proposed development would appear cramped compared to neighbouring properties. In addition, it would disrupt the rhythm of the street scene, resulting in a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant suggests that similar 2-storey side extensions at No 69 and No 75 set a precedent for the proposed development. However, I did not observe any comparable extensions at these properties while on site. In any event, each proposal must be considered on its own individual circumstances, and I have reasoned above why I have identified harm with the appeal proposal.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area. In this regard, the proposal is contrary to the relevant provisions of Policy BE14 of the Brentwood Local Plan 2016-2033. This policy seeks, among other matters, development which responds positively and sympathetically to its context and, where appropriate, retains or enhances existing features which make a positive contribution to the character, appearance or significance of the local area.

The proposed development would result in 2-storey development extending to the shared boundary with No 73, a chalet bungalow. The chalet bungalow has 2 windows on its flank elevation. The Council has identified that, one of the windows serves a bathroom and the other is a secondary window in a bedroom, with neither window, therefore, being a primary window serving a habitable room. I see no reason to disagree with those findings.

While the outlook from the windows on the flank elevation of No 73 includes the existing built form at the appeal property, both properties are set off from the shared boundary. This enables a relatively open outlook. The proposal would impinge on this outlook by reason of its height, in comparison to the height of the chalet bungalow, and proximity.

The appellant has drawn the South Bucks District Council and another v Porter [2004] UKHL 33 judgement to my attention. Amongst other things, this states that the reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. In reaching my decision, I find that, although neither is a primary window serving a habitable room, one of these windows does still serve a bedroom and the proposed extension would appear overbearing from the windows on the flank elevation of No 73 as a result of the height and proximity of built form.

The flank elevation of the proposed extension would not include any windows. While the window proposed on the rear elevation would have an oblique view of the rear garden at No 73, this window would not impinge on the privacy of the occupiers of No 73 to a greater extent than the existing windows on the rear elevation of the appeal property. As such, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not result in a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 73 with respect to privacy.

The appellant refers to an assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the daylight and sunlight entering No 73. The assessment itself is not before me. Notwithstanding this, from my observations on site it is evident that No 73 is orientated such that the principal elevations are to the front and rear. Given the secondary nature of the windows on the flank elevation and the siting of No [address] than the appeal property, I am satisfied that the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable effect on the daylight and sunlight entering No 73.

Taking account of the above, while I am satisfied there would not be an unacceptable effect in respect of privacy or daylight and sunlight, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 73, with particular regard to outlook. As such, the proposal does not accord with the relevant provisions of Policy BE14 of the Brentwood Local Plan 2016-2033. Among other matters, this policy seeks development which safeguards the living conditions of adjacent residents.

I appreciate the frustration of the appellant regarding the lack of engagement with the Council during the application process and perceived inconsistencies, errors and incomplete assessment within the Council’s Delegated Report. Nevertheless, I have reviewed the information before me and have assessed the appeal on the basis of the appeal proposal. These matters do not, therefore, lead me to an alternative conclusion on the main issues.

For the reasons given above, having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.