Appeal 6002495

The appeal is dismissed.

On my site visit I observed that a development which appeared to be broadly similar to the submitted plans had been constructed. I have dealt with the appeal on the basis that development has already commenced, and planning permission is sought for the development described on the application form and the plans before me.

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 232 and [address], with particular reference to outlook and privacy.

The appeal site is a two-storey brick-built terraced property with a pitched slate roof. The surrounding area is comprised of similarly styled terraced properties. An alleyway provides access to the rear of the properties on [address] and [address]. The rear yards and gardens accessed from the alleyway are relatively narrow and are of modest depth.

By contrast, the size and massing of the development is disproportionate relative to the size of the host dwelling and its rear yard. It occupies nearly the full length of the yard which, in the predominant absence of extensions of a similar scale and projection on surrounding properties, emphasises this imbalance.

The use of a flat roof at the two-storey level disrupts the rear façade of the terraced row. This is because this part of the development’s roof sits below the original eaves which, in combination with oversized fascia boards, interrupts the common eaves line of the terrace row to the detriment of its visual appearance. The use of painted blockwork further exacerbates this impression as its coursing, pointing and painted colour tone relate poorly to the original brick elevation to which the extension is adjoined.

There is another two-storey flat roofed extension on a property further along the terrace. I do not have the full details of how this development came into being. The presence of it does not overcome the harm that I have otherwise found and in fact points to a need for such proposals to be carefully controlled if the character and appearance of the area is to be safeguarded. As such, I attribute limited weight to any comparison with it, and it does not persuade me that the appeal proposal is acceptable.

Therefore, I find the development to be an unsympathetic and incongruous addition to the property which is harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As a consequence, the development conflicts with Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document 2022-2039 (2024) which seeks to development that respects and acknowledges the character and identity of the locality.

The first floor window situated within the southern elevation of the development overlooks the yard and would be very close to the first floor rear window of [address] (No.236). [name] accept that the neighbouring yard and extension would have had some level of intervisibility from the original rear windows of the appeal property, the introduction of this additional side-on view provides an imbalance of privacy between the appeal property and No.236 such that the occupiers of that neighbouring dwelling are able to be observed using their private spaces at closer quarters than was previously the case. This new relationship severely reduces No.236’s privacy to the detriment of the occupier’s living conditions.

The proximity of the development to the shared boundary with [address] (No.232) means that the outlook from both the rear windows and the yard of that property would be severely restricted. The limited width of the terraced houses and their yards means that outlook from gardens and rear windows is highly sensitive to changes in their surroundings. The erection of this tall structure on No.232’s southern boundary harshly encloses the rear elevation and yard of the property to an intolerable level of overbearance. The subsequent harm to No.232’s living conditions is therefore unacceptable.

I therefore conclude that the development unacceptably impacts the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with regard to their privacy and the occupiers of [address] with regard to their outlook. As a consequence, the development is in conflict with Policy 9 of the Oldham - Development Plan Document - [name] and Development Management Policies (2011) which seeks to protect and improve local living

The appellant states that the extension has insufficient internal head height to form living accommodation and it is being used for storage purposes. Nevertheless, the plans show that it would provide extended lounge, kitchen and bedroom spaces. From what I observed on site, I can see no reason why the proposal cannot be used for its intended purpose. Irrespective of how the development is utilised, it does not diminish the harm to the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties that I have identified above.

The appellant also indicates that they received poor advice from the Council’s enforcement officer. This is not a matter which I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the development.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.