Appeal 6002209

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • The character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area; and • The living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to privacy, outlook and light.

The dwellings on [address] and [address] form a block of housing with rear elevations and modest gardens. The proposal comprises a first floor rear extension above an existing single storey extension with a hipped roof which would span the entire width rear of the property.

The development would be setback relative to the projection of the existing extension thereby creating a tiered arrangement. Despite its setback, the overall bulk of the proposal would dominate the rear of the property. As no other property on [address] has a two-storey extension to the rear, the proposal would be prominent and would not be consistent with the prevailing character and appearance of the area, where the rear of properties maintain a consistent building line.

Whilst a hipped roof may reduce the bulk of the roof, it is not a feature which is commonplace in the vicinity. Although there may be examples of gables in proximity to the proposal, these are original design features of the houses and are therefore not comparable with the appeal proposal.

Although the proposed extension would be to the rear of the property and therefore not visible from the public realm of [address], it would be highly visible from the rear of other properties within the block. It would also be glimpsed in views from the public realm of [address] and [address]. The use of matching materials would not overcome this harm nor would the retention of garden space, which is unaffected by the proposal.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the development would have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property and surrounding area. As such, the development is in conflict with Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document 2022 to 2039 (PEJDPD) as well as Policies C1 and H10 of The Tameside Unitary Development Plan [name] 2004 (UDP) which, together, seek to control development so that it respects and acknowledges the character and identity of the locality.

The increased intimacy derived from this new relationship would exacerbate overlooking and disrupt the privacy of the opposing properties to the detriment of the occupiers’ living conditions. Although the proposal has been setback from the rear elevation of the ground floor extension, it would not sufficiently address the diminished privacy the proposed development would incur on neighbouring residents, where views into gardens from upper windows would be uncomfortably close to neighbouring gardens.

I note that the precise separation distance between the proposal and the opposing properties is disputed between the parties with their figures lying either side of the guidance in the Tameside Residential Design Supplementary Planning Document 2010 (the SPD). However, the proposal is at the limit of acceptable privacy for neighbouring occupiers. With this in mind, and having visited the site, I was nevertheless struck by the close relationship between the appeal dwelling and those whose gardens abutted it. The proposal would reduce this relationship further resulting in an uncomfortable and unacceptable level of privacy loss for neighbouring residents, particularly the occupiers of 4 and [address].

Although the appeal property and its immediate neighbours are detached and this creates space between them, the degree of separation is not substantial. This, combined with their modest garden sizes, mean the substantial flank walls of the proposal would create an oppressive outlook from the rear windows and gardens of Nos. 3 and [address] (Nos. 3 and 5). Though the inclusion of a hipped roof seeks to lessen this effect, the level of mitigation would be modest in the surrounding context and would not sufficiently address the proposal’s height, width, depth and proximity relative to Nos. 3 and 5.

The Council’s reason for refusal refers to loss of light. However, it is evident from the officer report that it is concerned with the effect of the proposal on sunlight to neighbouring properties. It states that the proposal would affect levels of sunlight to the rear windows of No.3 in the morning and No. 5 in the evening. However, due to the orientation of the appeal property in relation to the path of the sun it would be No. 5 that would be affected in the morning and No. 3 in the evening. However, the effects of the proposal would be very limited due to the orientation of the rear of the properties and their relationship with other buildings in the block which means that any sunlight directly into those windows would be very early morning and late evening where it is highly likely that it would be obscured by other properties within the block in any event. It is therefore unlikely that the proposal would cause undue harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 3 and 5 in that respect.

I therefore conclude that although the development would not have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 3 and [address] in respect of sunlight, the development would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of 3 and [address] and 4 and [address] with regard to privacy and outlook. By consequence, the proposal would conflict with PEJDPD as JP-P1 well as UDP Policy H10 both of which seek to control development so that it protects and improves the living conditions of local residents. The Council have referred to UDP Policy C1 in their reason for refusal however as this is concerned with townscape and urban form it has not been determinative on this main issue.

I note the appellant’s desire to provide additional living accommodation for their growing family and the current difficulties in the housing market, but this does not justify the harm that I have found in this case.

My attention has been drawn to the permitted development rights for single storey extensions. The appeal scheme involves a first floor extension and therefore this matter has not been a determinative factor in my consideration of the appeal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations which indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.