Appeal 6002179

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development differs between the application form and the decision notice. The description used in the banner header above has been taken from the application form.

As part of the appeal, an offer to reduce the size of the extension by 1m has been made. However, the rules of a householder appeal include that it is determined on the basis of the plans considered by the Council when it decided the application. It is therefore not possible for such an amendment to be taken into account as part of the appeal. I have therefore not done so.

The Rushcliffe Design Code (RDC) is dated September 2025. It is unclear whether it was formally adopted before the application was determined by the Council. However, it is an established principle when determining appeals that planning documents which are current at the time that the appeal is determined are taken into account. I have therefore taken the guidance within the RDC into account as part of this appeal.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties on both [address] and [address], with particular regard to outlook and privacy.

The appeal property is located on a modern housing estate which consists predominately of detached two storey dwellings focused around a small residential cul-de-sac. Most properties have integral garages with small, open front gardens which are mainly set aside for additional off-street car parking.

The detached dwellings are relatively tightly spaced together with only small breaks between development to provide for access gates into the rear garden areas. Consequently, direct views to the rear of properties from [address] are limited. The rear of the appeal property is more visible from the vantage point of [address] where, despite the presence of semi-mature shrubbery and a boundary hedge, the rear elevation of No. [site address] is prominent in the street scene.

The proposed two storey extension would project rearwards by approximately 4m and extend across the whole width of the rear elevation. The height of the proposed extension would be level with the main roof, include side dormer windows and would constitute a significant addition to the rear elevation of the property. The limited number of visual gaps between properties on [address] means that the proposed development would not be overly visible from that location. However, the proposal would be highly prominent when viewed from [address]. The scale of the proposed extension, particularly in regard to the first floor element, side dormers and the pitched roof, would not be subordinate to the original dwelling and would dominate the property and appear visually incongruous, particularly when viewed from [address].

Consequently, the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the character of the area and the appearance of the original dwelling. It would therefore be contrary to Policies 1 and 10 of Parts 1 & 2 of the [name] which requires development to make a positive contribution to the sense of place and be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The proposed development would result in a significant projection out from the original rear elevation of the property. It would be clearly visible from the habitable windows in the rear elevations of adjoining properties on [address] (Nos 9 and 15) and [address], including their rear gardens and private amenity areas. This visibility is accentuated by the open nature of the boundary treatment around the appeal property and the staggered orientation of properties on [address].

The proposed two storey extension incorporates side dormers onto both sides of the pitched roof which would overlook both Nos.9 and 15. The scale of the proposed extension and the positioning of the dormers in the roofscape would lead to overlooking into the rear gardens and private amenity spaces of these properties.

I note the appellant considers the use of obscure glazing will assist in mitigating any harm caused to privacy. However, I note from the plans that the main use of the roof space will be for a bedroom with ancillary dressing room. In these circumstances, whilst the use of obscure glazing would be suitable for the dressing room area, it would not be suitable for windows into the bedroom which need to allow for sufficient light and outlook for its occupants.

Therefore, whilst the use of obscure glazing would mitigate the impact of overlooking for No.9 it would not address the impacts on the occupants of No.15. Consequently, I conclude that the proposed side dormers would lead to an unacceptable harm and loss of privacy for the occupants of No.15 in regard to their rear garden and private amenity space.

The scale of the proposed extension, by virtue of its height, projection and positioning of habitable windows within its rear elevation, at both first and second floor levels would lead to an overly dominant effect on surrounding properties. This would lead to harming of the outlook from the habitable windows of No.9, but also due to the open nature of boundary treatment and proximity to the proposed development, the habitable windows in the rear elevation to 22 & [address].

[name] acknowledge that the presence of both the rear extension to No.9 and the conifer hedging along the common boundary would provide a degree of mitigation, this would be limited due to the scale and proximity of the extension to this boundary.

Consequently, the proposed extension, due to its scale, massing and design would result in an unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupants at 9 & [address] and 22 & [address], both in regard to their outlook and privacy from habitable first floor windows and also in relation to their private outdoor amenity space. This conflicts with Policy 10 of Part 2 of the [name] which states that new development should not lead to an over intensive form of development, be overbearing in relation to neighbouring properties, nor lead to undue overshadowing or loss of privacy. The proposal is also contrary to guidance set out in the RDC, specifically Code C5.6 which indicates that dormers on side elevations will not be accepted.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other extensions which have taken place in the locality of the appeal site that they feel set a precedent for their proposal. During my site visit, I noted extensions which have been added to the rear of other properties in the locality, particularly on [address]. However, those extensions do not have the same cumulative relationships, both with their wider surroundings and with adjoining properties, and so their impact on character, outlook and privacy are materially less than the appeal proposal. I therefore attach little weight to this consideration in favour of the appeal.

The appeal property is no longer large enough for the appellant’s expanding family and the extension would provide larger accommodation. [name] have given the appellant’s personal circumstances careful consideration, I am mindful of the advice contained in the Planning Practice Guidance1 that in general planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. It is also probable that the proposed development would remain long after the current personal circumstances have 1 Paragraph 008 [name] 21b-008-20140306 – What is a material planning consideration ceased to be material. I therefore find this factor is not sufficient to outweigh the harm that would be caused and the resulting conflict with the development plan.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.