Appeal 6002352

The appeal is dismissed.

I note from the appeal documentation and my site visit that the proposed development has already been carried out. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to sunlight, daylight, and visual impact.

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 41), a 2-storey end-of-terrace dwelling situated in a residential area. It is adjoined to [address] (No 40), which externally appears (aside from the above-mentioned works carried out to No

to be a mirror image of No 41. No 40 has a set of patio doors, containing windows, which serve a living room. No 40 benefits from a modestly-sized elongated garden to the rear of its patio.

Excluding the WC which protrudes slightly from the side extension, the development has extended No 41 by approximately 4.2 metres to the rear. Although it is single-storey and its maximum height does not exceed 3 metres, it is clearly visible above the existing fence along the common boundary between the 2 dwellings, including the horizontal section of the fence closest to No 41 and the part of the fence which slopes downwards towards the end of No 40’s garden.

Due to the orientation of No 40 and the path of the sun, any loss of sunlight has been confined to the afternoon, and considering the depth and height of the development, it has not caused an undue reduction in sunlight towards the windows in No 40’s rear patio doors, nor to No 40’s rear garden. Enough open space has remained to the rear of the development, and across No 40’s rear garden, such that any loss of daylight to No 40’s rear patio doors and rear garden is not significant.

The development is not situated directly behind the windows in No 40’s rear patio doors. Nevertheless, part 4.4 of Extensions to Houses: Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 4 states that a single-storey rear extension to a semi-detached house will normally be acceptable where the length of the extension is not more than 2.5 metres on the boundary with adjoining houses. The development exceeds this limit by some margin.

I observed that, due to its height and depth and siting directly on the common boundary between the 2 dwellings, it appears as a prominent feature when viewed from the middle of No 40’s living room. Furthermore, due to its substantial depth, and its height above the fence, the development constitutes an unduly dominant and visually oppressive structure when seen from No 40’s patio and rear garden. Given that the development involves a side as well as a rear extension, its considerable massing and bulk is evident when viewed from near the bottom of No 40’s rear garden, where it appears as an invasive and overbearing feature. Overall, it has made the living room, patio, and rear garden less pleasant spaces to use.

Reference has been made to a [name] and to a Householder Design Guidance SPD, but no copies of any such documents have been provided and I am therefore unable to assess the development against them. Mention has been made of a 45 degree angle rule, but no drawings have been provided to substantiate the appellant’s assertion that the development complies with this rule. In any event, the appellant has referred to such guidance as intending to prohibit development that would cause significant amenity harm, and for the reasons given above I have found that significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 40 has occurred. None of these matters change my findings on this main issue.

I therefore find that the development has had an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 40, with particular regard to visual impact. It conflicts with the 2nd bullet point of Policy D7 of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan 2001 – 2011 (adopted 2006) (UDP) which provides that, amongst other things, buildings should appear to be of a human scale overall and particularly at ground floor level and should not appear overbearing, and with Policy D8 of the UDP which provides that, amongst other things, the massing of a proposal should not adversely affect people’s amenities in respect of immediate outlook.

Policy D4 of the UDP relates to urban grain, Policy D9 of the UDP relates to appearance, Policy H6 of the UDP relates to housing developments, ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (adopted 2011) (BCCS) relates to design quality, and CSP4 of the BCCS relates to place-making, so these policies are not directly relevant to this main issue. Nevertheless, the above-mentioned policies are sufficient for me to come to a view on this main issue.

The development provides enlarged and enhanced living accommodation at No 41, to the benefit of its present and future occupiers. However, this is mainly a private, rather than a public benefit. Its benefits to the local area in terms of making an effective use of land are minimal. These matters merit little weight in favour of the development, and they do not outweigh the harm identified on the main issue above. Overall, none of the relevant material considerations indicate that this appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the National Planning Policy Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.