Appeal 6002565

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • the living conditions of occupiers of no [address], with particular regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight; and • the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises an existing dwelling plot. Neighbouring dwelling, no [address], is a semi-detached dwelling of broadly identical form and appearance to the appeal property. The side elevation of no 106 has a ground floor window serving a kitchen/diner which faces the side of the appeal property.

Behind no 106’s kitchen/diner is a single storey rear projection with a small, obscure glazed window and door on its flank wall and a wide patio door at the rear. The appellant asserts this forms an open plan, south-facing kitchen/dining room/sunroom. However, I have been provided no details of the internal layout of no 106, and therefore I cannot be certain the kitchen/diner and rear projection comprise a single room.

Due to the depth of the rear projection, it is not likely that light entering the patio door would adequately illuminate the kitchen/dining area within the dwelling’s main volume. The side-facing window would provide an important source of daylight and sunlight for no 106’s kitchen/diner, and the proposal does not demonstrate that the side window constitutes a secondary window.

The proposed two-storey extension would project toward the shared boundary, which the appellant indicates would result in a 3.25m separation distance between the window and proposed extension. The siting of the proposed extension in close proximity to no 106 would breach the “25-degree rule”1 which indicates diffuse daylighting of the neighbouring dwelling may be adversely affected.

No formal assessment of the proposed development’s effect on daylight and sunlight has been provided. Whilst the appellant notes the Council has not supplied such an assessment, it is implicit that the proposal should seek to demonstrate its compliance with development plan policies.

Due to the height and scale of the proposed extension and its close siting to the side elevation of no 106, I consider the proposed development would adversely impact on the amount of daylight and sunlight received by the kitchen/diner window. In the absence of a daylight and sunlight assessment, there is insufficient certainty that the loss of daylight and sunlight would be mitigated by other glazing. Therefore, I consider the proposed development would result in the kitchen/diner at no 106 appearing gloomier and increase reliance on use of artificial lighting.

Aside from a modest window, the side elevation of the proposed two-storey extension would comprise brickwork and a pitched tiled roof plane and therefore would be of limited visual interest. Due to its close siting to no 106, the proposed extension would appear overbearing and would have a harmful enclosing effect on no 106’s kitchen/diner.

The appellant refers to similarities between the proposal and schemes at no 178 and no [address]. However, the relationship of no 178 and its neighbouring dwelling appears different to the circumstances of the appeal property and its neighbour, which notably has only a small window in the side elevation. The side extension at no 204 projects toward a tree belt in the side garden and has a significantly different relationship to surrounding dwellings from the appeal proposal. Therefore, the relationship of the proposed extension to its neighbour would materially differ from other similar schemes.

For these reasons, having particular regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight, the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupants of no [address].

In this regard, the proposal would conflict with criterion 11 of Policy HQ1 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (LP) which requires development not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon nearby existing or permitted uses, including impacts on amenity and privacy.

The appeal property is a semi-detached house built in the 1930s. The dwelling is constructed of yellow brick with red brick quoins, has a prominent two-storey bay window set below a gable, and a tiled, pitched roof with a large chimney at the centre of the ridge. This southern side of [address] is characterised by pairs of semi-detached dwellings of similar form, layout and design. The appeal property is therefore typical of dwellings in the area and contributes positively to the uniform appearance of dwellings and regular pattern of development. 1 Site layout planning for daylight and sunlight (B209 2022), BRE

Nonetheless, dwellings in the area have been extensively altered. For example, the adjoining dwelling, no 110, has a large, hipped roofed porch at the front, and the white, horizontal, weatherboarding contrasts starkly with the vertical black timber and render at the appeal property. Whilst symmetrical in overall form and design, such alterations have diminished the symmetry between the dwelling pair.

The proposed extension would comprise a two-storey side projection and first-floor rear projection with a pitched roof and would be constructed with materials to match the brickwork and detailing of the existing dwelling.

Section 11.23 of the [name] 2023 sets out principles for the design of side extensions at semi-detached dwellings. The Design Guide notes that side extensions can have a significant impact on the street scene, since gaps between detached or semi-detached houses are an important characteristic and their infilling with side extensions can impact upon the character and appearance of the area.

The Design Guide seeks to prevent a ‘terracing effect’ from side extensions and advocates a minimum one-metre distance from the common boundary at first-floor height in the interests of fire safety and residential amenity in terms of daylight and sunlight. The proposed extension would be approximately 90-95cm from the shared boundary and therefore would breach the one-metre standard.

As set out above, I have concluded that the siting of the proposed extension would adversely impact the amount of daylight and sunlight received by a neighbouring dwelling and have concluded the proposal would conflict with policies of the development plan in this respect. Construction standards necessary to provide fire safety are set out by building regulations.

However, the visual impact of this small breach of the one-metre standard would not be perceptible within the context of the street scene. Neighbouring dwelling, no 106, is set in from the shared boundary by a driveway and is set back from the building line of the appeal property. This layout provides distinct separation between the dwellings. Furthermore, the proposed extension would be set back from the front elevation. Therefore, despite the breach of the one-metre standard, due to the pattern of surrounding development and the design of the proposed extension, the proposed extension would retain sufficient separation from the neighbouring dwelling to avoid a terracing effect within the street scene.

The Design Guide seeks to maintain the symmetry of semi-detached dwellings, which are normally designed as a matching pair, and ensure this character is respected and not compromised by any new extension. As discussed above, there are differences in appearance between the appeal property and the attached dwelling which reduces the symmetry between this semi-detached pair.

The proposed extension would be set back from the front elevation and would have a ridge height lower than the main roof ridge, as required by the [name], to achieve a subservient appearance to the main dwelling, and the width of the proposed extension would be significantly less than the width of the main house. Therefore, the height and width of the proposed extension would be proportionate to the dimensions of the main house. The overall form and appearance of the main volume of the dwelling would be retained, and therefore the proposal would not harmfully erode the symmetry of the appeal property and adjoining dwelling.

Furthermore, there are other extensions of similar form and appearance nearby. Whilst these are understood to pre-date the adopted guidance, they nonetheless comprise built features of the street scene. The proposed extension would not appear out of keeping with the existing character of the street.

For these reasons, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area.

In this respect, the proposal would comply with LP Policy HQ1 which requires development be of the highest possible quality and respond positively to their context, and the size, scale, massing, orientation, materials and appearance relate well to the existing local surroundings and reinforce local distinctiveness.

Whilst the proposed development would support the local building sector and represent an enhancement of the local housing stock, the small scale of these social and economic benefits would not outweigh the conflict with the development plan which I have identified.

[name] have found the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area, I have identified harm to living conditions of the occupants of no [address]. The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given the appeal should be dismissed.