Appeal 6002287

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission for a two and a half storey rear extension including a dormer and updates to the lower ground floor, internal alterations and minor updates to landscaping is refused.

The appeal is against the non-determination of a planning application. The Council’s appeal statement indicates that it would have refused planning permission for reasons relating to character and appearance and neighbouring living conditions. The main issues below are therefore taken from the Council’s appeal statement.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of occupants of [address], with particular regard to outlook and privacy.

The appeal site comprises an end-terraced two storey house in a residential area. The dwelling has a wider frontage, lower hipped roof and is not as deep as other properties in the terrace. There is some variation in the roof heights of terraces in the street, with some having small pitched roof dormers, but the largely unbroken pitched, tiled roofs give a uniformity to the local roofscape.

The roof height and profile of the proposed higher-level extension would align more with the adjoining property, and a single storey addition is also proposed. The extended roof would include a large rear dormer. There is no dispute about the appearance of the proposed front rooflights and rear basement extension.

The Council’s Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2009 (SPD) states that dormer windows should be proportionate in scale to the roof plane and should follow the vertical lines of any symmetrical openings, amongst other things. It seeks to resist large dormers which are disproportionate to the house. Further, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that development that is not well designed should be refused, especially where it fails to reflect local design policies, including SPDs.

The proposed rear dormer would be inset from the sides of the extended building, set down slightly from the new ridge line with grey roof tiles to match the existing building. Nevertheless, as it would occupy much of the rear roof, the proposed dormer would not reflect the vertical lines of the sash windows below. Due to its height and width, the proposed dormer would be a dominant and bulky addition, failing to appear proportionate to the extended house and introducing an incongruous feature in the terrace.

In addition, the hipped roof ends and large flat top on the proposed dormer would appear discordant with the proposed pitched gable roof. Further, the casement window openings would not reflect the more vertically proportioned sash windows below. Whilst space beside the house would be retained, due to its design, the dormer would appear as a visually jarring addition. This would be evident in private views from neighbouring properties and glimpsed views from the nearby path.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. It would be contrary to Policies LPRSP15 and LPRHOU2 of the Council’s Local Plan Review 2024 (LPR) where they require proposals to be of a high quality design and respond positively to local character, including requiring the scale of extensions to fit unobtrusively with the existing building.

The appeal dwelling is set back from the rear building line of the adjoining mid-terraced house at [address] (No 38). This neighbouring property has a rear facing basement window and glazed door and a narrow back garden. There is an existing single storey extension at [address] (No 36), close to the boundary with No 38.

The SPD indicates that the size of an extension at the back of a property needs to be carefully considered due to potential impacts on a neighbour’s outlook. It states that rear extensions on semi-detached or terraced houses should not normally project more than 3 metres from the rear elevation, amongst other things. The Framework requires developments to provide a high standard of amenity for existing users.

The basement level of the proposed extension would project around 4 metres along the rear mutual boundary with the adjoining property, significantly higher than the existing boundary wall. There is no suggestion that it would cause a harmful loss of light. However, the height, projection and siting of the proposed basement extension, when combined with the effects of the existing rear addition at No 36, would result in significant enclosure of the rear basement room and narrow adjoining outdoor space at No 38. The proposal would dominate the outlook from the neighbouring rear room and adjacent garden area, having an overbearing effect on the occupiers of No 38 when using these spaces.

The upper floors of the extended house would align with the rear of No 38, increasing the number and size of habitable room windows and bringing them closer to the adjoining property compared to the existing rear openings. Nonetheless, this arrangement is not unusual in a residential area. Indeed, other properties in the terrace have rear facing upper floor rooms. Further, a condition could prevent the use of the single storey rear extension as a balcony. As such, the proposal would not cause undue overlooking of the rear garden at No 38.

Therefore, whilst the proposed development would not harm the privacy of the occupants at No 38, it would unacceptably harm their outlook. This would be contrary to Policies LPRSP15 and LPRHOU2 of the LPR where they require proposals to respect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers, including avoiding an unacceptable loss of outlook.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including impacts on heritage assets, parking and highways safety. However, even if I were to agree with the Council on these points, the absence of harm is a neutral matter which does not carry weight in favour of the scheme.

The appellant indicates that ecological enhancements could be secured via a planning condition and that the proposal would bring the large underutilised basement into active use, providing flexible accommodation for the occupants. Nevertheless, the improvements to biodiversity and more efficient use of the property would not outweigh the harm I have found to the character of the area and neighbouring living conditions.

For the reasons given above, 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. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and planning permission is refused.