Appeal 6002254

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 parties have agreed a revised description of the proposed development, and I have used that in the banner heading above.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; • the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook, and the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook and privacy; and • highway safety, with particular regard to parking provision.

The existing outlook from the ground floor rear openings of No 15 is towards their garden but is limited both sides by their existing single-storey rear extension and boundary fence. The outlook from the large opening in the side elevation of that extension is towards the shared boundary fence, across a patio area which Appeal Planning Officer 6002254 appears to be used for outdoor seating. The outlook from the patio area is similarly restricted by the existing structures either side.

The proposed single-storey rear extension would project several metres beyond the rear of No 15 along the shared boundary and would be significantly higher than the existing boundary fence. Although it would have a pitched roof, the highest part would be closest to the rear windows of No 15 and would present a tall blank wall clearly visible above the fence. As a result of its height, depth and proximity to the boundary, it would create a more pronounced sense of enclosure than currently exists and would further restrict the already limited outlook from the rear and side openings of No 15 and its patio area. It would therefore have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 15 with regard to outlook.

I note that the current occupiers of No 15 raise no objections and would welcome the opportunity to infill between their existing rear extension and the proposed extension. However, I must assess this appeal based on the existing situation and not in relation to speculative or future development aspirations of neighbouring occupiers.

I also acknowledge the appellants’ reference to compliance with a 60 degree sight line drawn from a ground floor opening of No 15. The Council’s Householder Planning and Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2020) (SPD) sets out that this is a useful tool for demonstrating no harm to neighbouring amenity, rather than that compliance will always ensure no harm. In this case the proposal would be harmful for the reasons above, and compliance with the 60 degree sight line in relation to one opening does not account for the other factors which result in the harm I have identified regarding the outlook from No 15.

The appellants refer to the presence of many other extensions in the area of similar proportion and form. However, I have no details of how they came to be built or their relationship with neighbouring properties. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that they are comparable with the appeal scheme and they do not justify the harm identified.

The proposed two-storey side extension includes two first-floor windows that would allow direct and close-range views into the front bedroom of No 22 at first-floor level, resulting in a harmful loss of privacy that does not currently arise from existing views from road level. The proposed ensuite window could be conditioned to be obscure-glazed and suitably fixed shut. However, such a condition would not be appropriate for the proposed bedroom window, as it would unacceptably restrict the outlook from that room, and would not therefore provide suitable living conditions for the occupiers.

The side windows in the proposed rear extension would be high-level and therefore would not enable views into No 22. Accordingly, while the proposed rear extension would not lead to a reduction in privacy, the proposed side extension window would result in a harmful loss of privacy, to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupiers of No 22.

The first-floor front bedroom window of No 22 currently enjoys an open outlook due to the property’s set-back position and sizeable gap between this window and the appeal property at first-floor level. The proposed two-storey side extension would alter the outlook from this window by introducing built form in closer proximity than Appeal Planning Officer 6002254 at present. Nevertheless, the largely open outlook to the front would remain, with the extension seen to one side only. Therefore, the proposed extension would not appear unduly prominent or overbearing from this window.

The existing outlook towards the appeal site from the ground-floor side windows of No 22 and its garden is already constrained by the proximity of the shared boundary fence. The two-storey section of the proposed extension would be set well forward of No 22, so would only be partly visible at an oblique angle from its side windows. Consequently, the outlook from these windows and the rear garden of No 22 would not be harmfully reduced by the proposal. Therefore, the proposed development would not be detrimental to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 22 in respect of outlook.

I therefore find that the proposed development would adversely impact the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with regard to outlook and the occupiers of [address] with regard to privacy, but not outlook. Nevertheless, the development would thus fail to accord with policies DM35 and DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (2019) (Local Plan) which require development not to have a significant adverse impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties, and to preserve the amenities of neighbouring properties, respectively. It would also conflict with the aims of the SPD to safeguard living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The area around the appeal site is residential in nature and characterised by pairs of semi-detached and detached dwellings set back from the street, with the appeal property occupying a prominent corner position. The semi-detached properties are distinctive for their broad ground and first-floor windows and shallow pitched roofs. While this forms a clear pattern of development, there is some variation in the design of these pairs, with several having been altered or extended, particularly to the side and, in some cases, the front. This results in some asymmetry between pairs, including the host property and No 15, which has previously been extended. Front boundary treatments are minimal or absent, and together with wide grass verges and intermittent mature trees, the street has a spacious and verdant character.

The siting of the proposed extension forward of the existing garage would slightly reduce the separation between the dwelling and the edge of the road. However, front building lines and front garden depths vary considerably within the surrounding area, and the proposal would sit comfortably within this established pattern. In addition, although the proposed side extension would infill part of the existing gap between the appeal property and its neighbour, similar gaps have already been reduced elsewhere in the vicinity. This has led to a varied pattern of spacing between dwellings, and the proposal would not appear intrusive or unduly prominent in this context.

The two mature trees next to the appeal property on the frontage of No 22 contribute positively to the verdant character of the surrounding area. In the absence of technical assessment, it is unclear whether the proposed development would affect the root network and long-term health of the closest tree either directly or indirectly from damage during construction. Loss of or damage to the tree would harm the character and appearance of the area. However, this could be Appeal Planning Officer 6002254 appropriately mitigated by condition to secure details of the methods of construction, tree protection and, if necessary, appropriate foundation design.

The proposed porch would modest in size and of sympathetic design, similar to others in the area. Therefore, this element would not harm the character and appearance of the area.

Accordingly, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and therefore complies with Policies DM34, DM35 and DM36 of the Local Plan, Saved Policy DM13 of the [name] and Site Allocations Plan (July 2013, partially saved August 2019) and Policy HAZNP2 of the Hazlemere Neighbourhood Plan 2023-2033, which together require development to achieve high quality design and safeguard biodiversity and green infrastructure.

As the proposal would increase the number of bedrooms to four, the Buckinghamshire Countywide Parking Guidance (2015) requires an increase in parking provision from two to three spaces. During my site visit, I noted that even with the proposed front extension, there would remain sufficient space to park one car on the driveway. The Guidance sets out minimum size requirements for spaces within garages, and it has not been demonstrated that either the existing or extended garage would comply. Therefore, this cannot be counted as a parking space.

While the appellants suggest that additional parking could be accommodated within the site, it is unclear how this could be achieved given the limited size of the front hardstanding, without loss of some of the lawn. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that additional parking could be accommodated on site.

Nevertheless, most properties in the surrounding area benefit from driveways and there is ample opportunity for on-street parking. There is no substantive evidence before me that an additional car parked on street would result in any harmful impacts given the width of the roads and the availability of on-street parking. Therefore, any additional parking requirement resulting from the proposal could be accommodated on the road without resulting in adverse effects on the safety and operation of the highway. Nor do I find harm to public rights of way, as none have been identified in the immediate area.

For these reasons, the proposed development would not harm highway safety, with particular regard to parking. Therefore, it would not conflict with Local Plan Policies DM35 and 36, which do not have specific provisions in relation to parking or highway safety, but do require development to respond positively to the surrounding area. Nor do I find conflict with Local Plan Policy DM33, which has been provided by the Council, which requires sufficient parking to be provided, ensuring that there is no significant adverse impact form overspill parking.

Furthermore, I find no conflict with the aims of the SPD or Parking Guidance in relation to parking and highway safety.

Accordingly, I find that while the proposal would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area or highway safety, it would harm the living Appeal Planning Officer 6002254 conditions of the occupiers of No 15 with regard to outlook, and No 22 with regard to privacy.

Consequently, for the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, 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.