Appeal 6002092

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this case are: i) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the street scene and Emerson Park Policy Area; and ii) the effect on the living conditions of neighbours at Nos.1 and [address]. There is no objection to the conversion of the garage to habitable accommodation or to the front boundary wall and gate.

The appeal site contains a detached single-storey bungalow with integral garage located on [address] within Sector [address] Policy Area Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Within Sector 6, there is a variety of large chalets and houses, including large three-storey houses, resulting in a diverse character in terms of size, scale and positioning within their respective plots.

The SPD states that redevelopment of a number of properties within Sector 6 generally results in increased density and reduced rear garden lengths, both of which are harmful to the sector's special character. The SPD also states that no part of any new building or extension to an existing building will be permitted to be built within 1m from an adjoining common party boundary at ground floor or 2m at first floor.

Like many other dwellings in the area, the appeal bungalow occupies most of the width of the site. It also sits in a central position between its front and rear boundaries and is in close proximity to the dwellings to the side and rear at Nos.1 and [address]. The general nature of the houses in the vicinity is that of substantial buildings either in chalet or 2-storey form. The appeal bungalow, being wide and low, is relatively modest, and out of scale with its neighbours.

The appeal proposal adheres to the existing footprint, save for a small extension at the front, but is enlarged in height by a full first floor under a hipped roof with additional hipped extensions on the front elevation. The result would be an imposing building that would appear cramped on the site and incongruous in the street scene. It appears that the appeal proposal is an amended scheme, with a reduction in overall height, but this fact is not persuasive in respect of the outcome of this appeal. The cramped appearance would be exacerbated by the fact that the first floor would be offset from the side boundary by just 1m, rather than the 2m required by the SPD, as set out above.

It is suggested in the appeal statement that an amendment to the plans could be made by increasing the offset to 2m as required, and that this could be dealt with by a condition. I do not consider that such an amendment could be suitably achieved by condition, since it would have ramifications for the overall appearance of the proposed dwelling that would need to be appraised in relation to the overall design. In any event, this small change to the design would not overcome the fact that the proposal would continue to appear cramped, and would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the street scene in this part of the Emerson Park Policy Area.

Turning to the second issue, No.[address] has a reasonably substantial garden on a wide but somewhat shallow plot. The height and mass of the proposal immediately on the boundary between the dwellings would create a dominant and overbearing presence that would be harmful to the living conditions of the residents of No.1. Number [address] proximity to the appeal property, with its back garden running across the back of the site. As a result of its shallow back garden, the rear elevation of the proposal, with a number of windows at first-floor level, would cause direct overlooking and loss of privacy of these neighbours. Again, this would be seriously harmful to their living conditions.

I have considered the suggestions put forward on behalf of the appellant that the first-floor rear windows could be required to have increased sill heights/oblique, obscure glazing/angled windows to prevent direct views into neighbouring private garden areas. These would be substantial changes to the design put forward, the details of which are not presented, and would require a separate analysis of the appearance and effectiveness of any such proposal put forward. These matters and the conditions suggested by the appellant including landscaping/boundary treatment do not overcome the objections to the scheme that I have dealt with.

I conclude that the appeal proposal would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the streetscene in this part of the Emerson Park Policy Area, would create a dominant and overbearing presence that would be harmful to the living conditions of the residents of No.[address], and would result in direct overlooking and loss of privacy of the neighbours at No.[address]. For these reasons the appeal will be dismissed.