Appeal 6002306

The appeal is dismissed.

The council have indicated that the Draft District Plan 2021-2039 (Regulation 19) is at examination, and the stage 1 hearings were concluded on the 31st October 2024. However, the council have indicated there are unresolved objections to some of the policies in the Draft District Plan 2021-2039. Therefore, at this stage the emerging plan carries limited weight.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address] (No.10), with particular regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight.

During my visit I observed that openings 2 and 3 serve the L-shaped kitchen and dining area of No. 10. The appellant’s light study indicates that the 25-degree line drawn from openings 2 and 3 would be obstructed. This means these windows would experience a reduction in daylight as a result of the appeal proposal.

The light study also demonstrates that opening 2 has an existing approximate vertical sky component (VSC) of 36% and this would be reduced to 31% as a result of the proposed development.

Opening 3 is obscured glazed and has an existing approximate VSC of 24%. This would be reduced to 16% after the proposed development. The light study details that the approximate average VSC for the kitchen and dining room after the proposed development would be 28.7% and study weighted average VCS would therefore be within the limits recommended by Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidance.

However, I must also take into account the relatively large size and L-shaped layout of this kitchen and dining area. From my site visit, I could see that opening 3 was obscured glazed to a low level and was the main window serving the kitchen area of this room. Even though it is obscurely glazed, I observed that it offers natural daylight into the kitchen area and makes a positive contribution to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.10 when using this room. The proposed development would reduce the VSC of opening 3 to 16%. This is less than the 27% and less than 0.8 times its former value which means there is likely to be an adverse effect on the amount of light required through opening 3.

Furthermore, the size and the L shape of this kitchen and dining area means the kitchen area is less likely to benefit from the daylight received through the bi-fold doors (opening 1) and it would therefore likely feel gloomy as a result of the proposed two storey side extension at the appeal property. Thus, I am not satisfied the proposed development would not lead to a reduction in daylight to the kitchen area which would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.10.

Openings 4, 5 and 6 serve the living room of No.10. Opening 4 and 5 are smaller secondary windows but I observed on my site visit that these openings make a positive contribution to the daylight received to the living room.

The appellant has indicated the proposed development would be set behind opening 5 and this means there would be no change to the existing VSC which is 24%. An interested party has indicated that opening 5 is not set behind the proposed development. I have reviewed the drawings in evidence and have found the light study does not appear to have taken into account the roof of the proposed porch of the proposed extension. Drawing no 003 shows the proposed porch roof directly opposite opening 5.

The appellant has indicated the proposed development would be set behind opening 5 and this means there would be no change to the existing VSC which is 24%. Third parties have indicated that opening 5 is not set behind the proposed development. I have reviewed the drawings in evidence and have found the light study does not appear to have taken into account the roof of the proposed porch of the proposed extension. Drawing no 003 shows the proposed porch roof directly opposite opening 5.

Thus, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that opening 5 is set behind the proposed development. I am not satisfied that the weight average VSC in the light study is precise because it has not taken into account the VSC with the proposed development for opening 5 with the proposed porch roof.

In considering the above, I am not satisfied the proposed development would not lead to a harmful reduction in daylight to the living room of No.10, as a result of its impact on openings 4 and 5. I find the reduction in daylight to this living room would cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.10.

The lighting study has not covered the rooms on the first and second floor. The evidence shows that these side windows relate to a bedroom and bathrooms. The secondary window which relates to the bedroom of the first floor would be set forward of proposed development and higher than the proposed porch. Therefore, the proposal is unlikely to have a harmful effect on this window.

The other first floor window is obscurely glazed and appears to serve a bathroom. It is likely that the proposed development, due to its height and position, would likely reduce the daylight to this room and therefore have some limited negative impact on the users of this room.

The second‐floor window appears to serve a bathroom and considering the height and positioning of the proposed development, it is not likely to be adversely affected.

Nevertheless, when all is considered, I am not satisfied that the proposed development would not harmfully reduce the daylight received to the kitchen and living room areas of No.10. I find the proposal would therefore cause significant harm to the occupiers of No.10 in this respect.

The appellant indicates within their evidence that sunlight levels would also remain within acceptable limits. However, concerns have been raised by the Council and third parties in regard to the accuracy of the submitted evidence. On reviewing the sunlight report within the evidence, whilst the table does show the [name] would be reduced by the proposed development, it appears incomplete and does not provide the methodology for these calculations.

I am also mindful that the proposed development would be close to the shared boundary of [site address] (No.8) and No.10. The massing and the position of the proposed development is likely to cause a tunnelling effect. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the proposed development would not lead to a harmful impact of sunlight received to the side windows and rooms of No.10. Thus, I am not satisfied that the living conditions of the occupiers of No.10 would not be adversely affected.

In terms of the proposed rear single storey element, I have noted the appellant’s suggestion of a fall-back position but in any event, I found that its height and positioning is unlikely to have a harmful effect on the sunlight received to the private outdoor amenity space of No.10. Nevertheless, this does not outweigh the harm I have already identified.

From my site visit I could see that the current outlook from some of the ground floor windows in the side of No.10 is onto a hedge and the side elevation of No.8. There are however glimpses of the sky from some of these ground floor windows of No.10. The proposed development involves the 2-storey side extension and single storey rear extension which would be close to the shared boundary of No.8 and No.10.

From my site visit I could see that No.10 is set at a lower site level than the appeal property. The change in site levels and proposed development’s height, length and positioning would reduce glimpses of the sky and create a tunnel effect when viewed from some of the windows in the side elevation of No.10.

I acknowledge that the hedge would remain, but the close presence of an impermeable wall of the proposed development would create a sense of enclosure and would harmfully reduce the outlook from the openings 2, 4 and 5 as labelled in the light study. This would have a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.10.

I accept hat opening 3 is obscured glazed window and thus there would be less impact of this opening in terms of outlook.

The appellant indicates on the first floor there is one small window that is secondary to a bedroom with a bay window in the front elevation. The proposed first storey element is set back behind this side window and thus retains an acceptable outlook. The other two windows at first and second storey level appear to be obscured glazed and thus the proposed development would have less impact of these windows in terms of outlook. However, this does not negate the harm I have already found in respect of the loss of outlook experienced from the ground floor windows.

I conclude that it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed development would not harmfully reduce daylight, sunlight and outlook to No.10 . As such, I find that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.10. Thus, the proposed development would not comply with the provisions set out in Policy DP26 of the Mid Sussex District Plan 2014-2031 (March 2018) and Policy 9 of the Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan (June 2019). These policies together seek to protect living conditions through securing a high standard of design.

The appellant has indicated that the proposed development would make a positive contribution to the character of the area. However, this does not outweigh the harm I have found in relation to living conditions.

The appellant indicates that the proposed development would improve the privacy relationship between No.8 and No.10 by removing the clear-glazed, side-facing windows. This would provide a small benefit to the occupiers of No.10 but it would not negate the harm I have identified with regard to loss of daylight, sunlight and outlook.

I acknowledge that the proposed development would create further accommodation to create a larger family home which would provide more flexibility to the occupiers of No.8 . However, this benefit does not outweigh the harm that I have identified above. Moreover, there is no indication that similar benefit could not be achieved via an alternative scheme. Ultimately, this consideration does not lead me to an alternative conclusion on the main issue.

I acknowledge that that the scheme was originally recommended for approval by officers of the Council and that their recommendation was overturned by members of the planning committee. I understand this has caused frustration for the appellant. However, members are not bound by the recommendation of officers and are entitled to come to a different view. In any case, I have considered this appeal based on the evidence before me.

For the above reasons, having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.