Appeal 6001853

The appeal is dismissed.

At the appeal stage, the Council submitted additional information relating to the application of the 45 and 25 degree guideline as set out in Appendix 3.7 of the Oxford Local Plan 2036 (adopted 2020) (Local Plan). The appellant was provided with an opportunity to comment, and I have taken the comments received into account in my determination of this appeal.

The appellant has requested that this decision be put on hold, pending discussions with the Council (including potential amendments to the proposed development). However, as set out in paragraph 7.1.1. of the Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England, once an appeal has been made, the jurisdiction to decide an appeal transfers to an Inspector. Hence, the Council no longer has jurisdiction to decide the planning application now under appeal. Furthermore, paragraph 9.4.9. of the Procedural Guide states that unless there are exceptional reasons, the Planning Inspectorate will refuse requests to postpone the appeal or put it in abeyance. As no exceptional reasons have been provided, I have determined this appeal as per the normal process.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupiers of 90 and [address], with particular regard to daylight, sunlight, and visual impact.

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 92), a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling situated in a predominantly residential area. No 92 benefits from an existing conservatory to its rear.

Rear extensions to dwellings are common along [address]. The rear elevation of the extension to the rear of [address] (No 94) does not protrude as far into its plot when compared with No 92’s conservatory, but is set in line with the point at which No 92’s kitchen and utility rooms adjoin No 92’s conservatory. The porch to the rear of [address] (No 90) is limited in depth and width, and it stops short of the end of No 92’s protrusion containing its kitchen and utility rooms. I observed that the rear elevation of the extension to the rear of [address] (No 88) appears to be broadly in line with the rear elevation of the existing protrusions to the rear of No 92 (which include No 92’s kitchen and utility area and conservatory).

The proposed development would demolish the existing conservatory (which has a partially damaged corrugated-plastic roof), replacing it with a single-storey rear extension with a contemporary design. The proposed extension would span the entire width of the rear of No 92. Its depth would be approximately 2.5 metres greater than the existing conservatory. It would have a height of approximately 2.6 metres.

As such, No 92 would be extended considerably further back within its plot in comparison with Nos 94, 90, and 88. Due to its depth, width, and height, its scale within its immediate context would be considerable. I have not been referred to any particular rear extensions of a comparable scale along [address].

Planning condition(s) could be imposed to ensure that appropriate materials would be used. However, this would not sufficiently off-set the adverse visual impact caused due to the extension appearing out-of-scale, and therefore incongruous, in its context. Rather than enhancing local distinctiveness, harm to the character and appearance of the area would result.

Reference has been made to double-storey extensions, including side extensions, along [address] and the surrounding area. However, no specific examples have been identified, and no plans or drawings relating to any specific planning permissions have been provided. The degree to which these examples are comparable with the proposed development in terms of their scale and design is accordingly unclear. Thus, the examples referred to do not alter my findings above.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy DH1 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, planning permission will only be granted for development of high quality design that creates or enhances local distinctiveness.

The proposed extension would be set-in from the shared boundary with No 90 by approximately 1.6 metres. I observed that the windows serving a habitable room on the ground floor at No 90 are positioned behind No 90’s rear porch. These windows are situated several metres away from the location of the proposed extension. Due to this distance and that it would be a single-storey structure, the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the amount of daylight and sunlight received to those windows, and its visual impact when seen from those windows would be minimal. Similarly, it would be situated a sufficient distance away from No 90’s paved patio area and rear garden such that its visual impact upon these areas would be limited. Hence, the proposed development would not negatively impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No 90.

The appellant has provided analysis and drawings which show that the proposed development would not breach the 45 and 25 degree guideline as set out in Appendix 3.7 of the Local Plan, with respect to No 94’s patio doors. Considering this, and noting that those patio doors are west-facing, the proposed development would not unduly reduce the amount of daylight and sunlight received to them.

Nevertheless, Appendix 3.7 of the Local Plan expresses the 45 and 25 degree test as a guideline, with Appendix 3.7 stating that a proposed development will ‘generally’ be acceptable if the test is passed. Consequently, the outcome of the test is not determinative. Planning judgement is required, having regard to the circumstances of the site and its surroundings.

The proposed extension would extend approximately 5 metres beyond the rear of No 94. It would be situated directly on the shared boundary between No 92 and No

It would be situated very near to the patio doors which serve No 94’s kitchen / dining area. As the patio doors face No 94’s rear garden, views of the proposed extension would be at an oblique angle, meaning that its visual impact when seen from those windows would not be significant.

However, it would constitute a particularly deep structure sited directly on the shared boundary between No 92 and No 94, and taking account of its proposed height, it would appear as a large and unduly dominant feature when viewed from the patio area to the rear of No 94. I am mindful that patio areas are generally considered to be particularly sensitive areas in terms of the living conditions of occupiers, due to their common usage for sitting out and relaxation near where food can be prepared and easily reached. This would undermine the enjoyment of the use of the patio area for the occupiers of No 94. As a result, their living conditions would be adversely affected.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 94, with particular regard to visual impact. It would conflict with Policy H14 of the Local Plan which provides that, amongst other things, planning permission will not be granted for any development that has an overbearing effect on existing homes, and with part a) of Policy RE7 of the Local Plan which provides that planning permission will only be granted for development that ensures that the amenity of communities, occupiers and neighbours is protected.

The conduct of the Council during the processing of the planning application is not a matter that I can assess in the context of a planning appeal. The lack of objections from nearby residents is a neutral matter, as there could be any number of reasons why representations were not submitted at application stage.

Mention has been made of a Certificate of [name] or Development for an outbuilding. I have no reason to doubt that such a development could take place in the event that this appeal is dismissed. From the limited details provided, it appears that such an outbuilding would be slightly wider but of a similar height and depth to the proposed development. Accordingly, its effect on the character and appearance of the area and on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 94 would likely be similar to that caused by the proposed development. It would not be much more harmful than the proposed development. As it does not provide strong support for the proposed development, moderate weight has been given to this matter in favour of the proposed development.

The proposed development would provide enlarged accommodation on site, which would benefit the present and future occupiers of No 92. However, this would mainly be a private benefit rather than a public benefit. Few details have been provided to quantify the scale of the environmental benefits arising due to the installation of insulation and a flat-roof made of GRP.

Collectively, the above-mentioned matters merit moderate weight in favour of the proposed development. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) highlights that the creation of high quality places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. The proposed development would not advance this aim. As the adverse impacts of the proposed development would be significant, the considerations put forward in support of it do not outweigh the harms identified on the main issues above. Overall, none of the relevant material considerations indicate that this appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.