Appeal 6002210

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of [address] (No 65) and [address] (No 69), in terms of outlook, daylight and sunlight.

The appeal site comprises a mid-terraced dwelling located in a mixed-use area. It features an existing two-storey rear wing and a single storey rear extension. The side boundaries to the rear gardens of Nos 65 and 69 on either side are formed of wooden fences which are of a moderate height. Both of the adjoining properties have windows on their ground floor rear elevations which are sited close to the side boundary with the appeal property.

The Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2023) seeks extensions that do not result in a material loss of amenity to neighbouring properties as a result of outlook and overshadowing. In that regard, it advises that single storey rear extensions should not exceed a projection of 4 meters along a boundary. It also advises that for properties with large outriggers/rear wings and only a narrow space to the boundary, it will not normally be appropriate to infill the space to the boundary.

Due to the considerable depth of the proposed single storey rear extension which would be greater than the SPD’s recommended 4 metres along the boundary to both sides, the extension would be a conspicuous feature when experienced from the rooms which the nearest ground floor rear windows at Nos 65 and No 69 serve. Furthermore, as a result of the extension’s depth, combined with its proximity to the boundary, and its height above the fence line, it would have an overbearing effect on the outlook from the ground floor rooms at the adjoining properties. For the same reasons, the extension would also be very likely to reduce ambient daylight to the rooms. Consequently, the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of occupiers of Nos 65 and 69, in terms of outlook and daylight. Although the flat roof design of the extension would limit its height, this would not be sufficient to overcome the harm.

In terms of sunlight, the location plan shows that the extension would be located to the north-west of No 65. As such, it is unlikely to reduce sunlight to the room at that property. In contrast, as the extension would be situated to the south-west of No 69, it would reduce sunlight to the room at that property, most likely during the afternoon and evening hours. There is no compelling evidence from the appellant to lead me to a different conclusion on this matter. Consequently, the proposal would also result in harm to the living conditions of occupiers of No 69, in terms of sunlight.

In summary, the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 65 and 69, in terms of outlook, daylight and sunlight. It would conflict with Policy DE1 of the Coventry Local Plan (2017), which requires that developments respect their surroundings and respond to the physical context of the site. It would also conflict with the guidance in the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework, which amongst other matters, seek extensions that do not result in a loss of amenity to neighbouring properties and provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

I have carefully considered the appellant’s personal circumstances, in terms of their desire to provide additional usable space based on the needs of a family member and their difficulties in finding suitable accommodation in the same area. I also acknowledge that the appellant has considered an alternative design proposal suggested by the Council, albeit I do not have any plans of the alternative proposal. Furthermore, although the commentary from the appellant refers to the ways in which the additional space would be used based on the family’s needs, there are no detailed floorplans of the extension before me which show its layout and how it has been specifically designed with the needs of the family member in mind.

For the above reasons, whilst I sympathise with the appellant’s situation, there is insufficient specific evidence before me to draw a clear conclusion that the appeal proposal is the only reasonable option available to meet the family’s needs, or that their needs could not be addressed through a proposal which would not be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Consequently, and based on the evidence before me, I can only give the appellant’s personal circumstances moderate weight in this instance.

Disability is a protected characteristic. As such, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 in eliminating discrimination against persons with protected characteristics, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons and fostering good relations between them and others. However, for the reasons set out above, there is limited evidence to suggest that the dismissal of the appeal would have a disproportionate effect on the personal circumstances identified by the appellant, when weighed against the planning harm.

I also recognise that the appellant indicates that the neighbours are supportive of the proposal. To that extent, the appellant has set out some benefits in terms of the ways in which the neighbours could use their properties, including blocking out views of the industrial buildings in the surrounding area. However, even if that is the case, the support of neighbours albeit which is not supported by any detailed evidence does not overcome the harm identified under the main issue. I am also mindful that occupiers of neighbouring properties may change over time.

Whilst it is highlighted that the proposal would not be harmful in terms of its appearance, and that sufficient garden space would remain following the development, the absence of harm in this regard are neutral factors which do not weigh in favour of the appeal. These factors do not alter my findings on the appeal overall.

The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole, and there are no other identified considerations, including the personal circumstances of the appellant, which would outweigh this conflict. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.