Appeal 6002775

The appeal is dismissed.

At my site visit I observed that the development had commenced and was substantially complete. However, I noted some differences between the submitted plans and the development which had been constructed. For the avoidance of doubt, I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

The Council requested that I view the development from a neighbouring property. Although we wrote to the occupier requesting access, I was unable to gain entry during my site visit. However, I am satisfied that I was still able to view the relationship with the appeal property sufficiently to assess the effect of the proposal on the neighbouring living conditions. I have therefore considered the appeal on this basis.

The Council states that the original planning permission1 has not been lawfully implemented. They state that the approved development is materially different from what has been built and that the original permission contained a genuine condition precedent which has not been discharged. Based on the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree with this conclusion. A further application for planning permission2 has also been granted by the Council, which sought approval retrospectively for a dwelling. Based on the evidence before me, this permission has not been implemented.

An Enforcement Notice3 was served by the Council 25 September 2025. A copy of the notice has been provided with the appeal documentation and confirms that it took effect on 30 October 2025, with a twelve-month period for compliance. Nonetheless, this appeal relates to the refusal of planning permission for the as built dwelling and I have therefore considered the appeal on this basis. 1 Application Refs: 16/00521/OUT and 19/01213/REM 2 Application Ref: 24/00826/FUL 3 Council Reference: 24/00175/ENF

My attention has been drawn to the consultation on a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and accompanying [name]. However, whilst the consultation and draft National Planning Policy Framework are material considerations, the proposed reforms are draft and therefore may be subject to change before the final document is published. I therefore afford it limited weight in my consideration of the appeal before me.

The main issues are: • The effect of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to outlook, light and private amenity space; and • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a detached, two-and-a-half storey, red brick-built property situated on a triangular shaped plot of land, formerly used as garden for and on the west side of [name]. It is the only dwelling accessed off [site address] .

It is located between residential development to the north and an employment use allocation to the south. The Council has confirmed that a mixed-use development, including creation of new access and associated works has recently been approved on this land. There is further employment development along [address] which adds to the prevailing character of the area.

Immediately to the north of the appeal site is [address], part of a recent housing development comprising of mostly terraced or semi-detached brick-built dwellings. Other nearby residential development includes a detached two-storey dwelling known as [name] and a single storey dwelling known as Lyndhurst. These properties face onto [address] and are situated either side of the junction with [site address] .

The appeal proposal seeks approval retrospectively for the erection of a two-and-a-half storey detached dwelling.

Policy CDMP3(c) of the Wyre Local Plan 2011-2031 (incorporating partial update of 2022), adopted 26 January 2023 (the WLP) states that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of occupants and users of surrounding or nearby properties.

The guidance contained with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance 4 – Spacing Guidance for [name] sets out that rear elevations facing other rear elevations should maintain a minimum separation distance of 21 metres. This requirement is designed to safeguard adequate levels of light, privacy, and general residential amenity between neighbouring dwellings.

In this particular case, the rear elevation of the appeal property and the closest neighbouring buildings are not located directly behind one another. Instead, 1, 3 and [address] (Nos 1, 3 and 5) are situated on a angle with the appeal site. As a result, they do not directly face each other.

In such circumstances, it would be reasonable to consider whether lesser separation distances would deliver the aims of this guidance. However, the appeal dwelling is positioned approximately 2.2 metres from the boundary with No 1, and the rear elevation of the appeal dwelling sits approximately 8.4 metres from the rear elevation of that property. Likewise, the adjoining properties, Nos 3 and 5 are located approximately 11.7 metres and 14.5 metres away respectively. These distances fall well short of the 21 metre requirement and represent more than minor deviations from adopted guidance.

As a result of the limited separation distances and the overall height of the dwelling as built, I find the rear-facing habitable rooms of Nos 1, 3 and 5 will be likely to experience reduced daylight and sunlight, particularly during times when the sun is lower in the sky. The development also generates a strong sense of enclosure for adjoining occupiers. The combination of the dwelling’s height and its minimal distance from the shared boundaries results in an overbearing presence. The effect is a harmful reduction in outlook and an increased feeling of being enclosed by built form.

In addition to above impacts, the proposal adversely affects the quality and usability of their private amenity space. The reduced separation distances mean that rear gardens are subjected to overshadowing and an overly dominant building close to their boundaries. This harms their function as pleasant and usable outdoor areas for relaxation, recreation, and general domestic enjoyment.

The appellant places considerable reliance on the absence of neighbour objections. However, the absence of objections does not equate to the absence of harm. The appellant also makes reference to the conclusions reached by the Council under the previous application4. However, based on the information before me, that approval appears to have been granted on the basis that the agreed reduction in both ridge height and eaves height would mitigate the harmful effects on the neighbouring occupiers. This current proposal departs from those agreed changes and therefore, I cannot rely on conclusions reached for a different proposal. Furthermore, the appeal submission lacks any substantive evidence to demonstrate that the dwelling as built is not unacceptably harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Consequently, given the considerable shortfall from the required separation distances, the substantial height of the dwelling, and the resulting impacts on light, outlook, and the enjoyment of private amenity space, the development causes unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. Thus, there would be conflict with Policy CDMP3 of the WLP which requires, amongst other things, that development must not have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenity of occupants and users of surrounding or nearby properties.

Policy CDMP3 of the Wyre Local Plan expects all development to be of a high standard of design and be designed to respect or enhance the character of the 4 Application Ref: 24/00826/FUL area, having regard to issues, including siting, layout, height, scale, massing, orientation, landscaping and use of materials.

In considering the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, I note that the surrounding built environment displays a considerable degree of architectural variety. The evidence before me indicates that the vicinity comprises a mixture of building forms, including a substantial two-storey stone-fronted dwelling to the east ([name]), a rendered bungalow to the south-east (Lyndhurst), a modern residential development to the north, and a commercial scheme under construction to the south. This diversity in scale, form and appearance leads me to the view that the appeal site does not sit within a context defined by a single or tightly prescribed architectural character

Taking into account the character of the surrounding area, I do not consider it reasonable to expect new development to replicate any one specific building style. The Framework recognises that high-quality design can take different forms, and that appropriate variation within a streetscape may contribute positively to local distinctiveness. Whilst the dwelling as built departs from previously approved schemes, those earlier permissions do not, in themselves, dictate the only acceptable design outcome for the site.

Although the Council expresses concern regarding the number of windows and rooflights in the rear elevation, these elements are characteristic of contemporary residential design and are not, in my assessment, unduly visually harmful. They are not prominently visible from public vantage points, and their inclusion does not undermine the overall coherence of the building. Accordingly, the dwelling reads as part of a wider and varied pattern of development rather than as an incongruous feature. Accordingly, I find that the design of the appeal building does not harm the character and appearance of the area and can be regarded as complying with the aims of local and national design policy.

Turning to matters of scale, it is clear that the dwelling exceeds the height of earlier approved proposals. However, the key issue is the impact of the height on the surrounding area, rather than its divergence from historical permissions. The ridge height of approximately 8.9 metres is higher than the properties directly to the north, though the difference is relatively modest.

I also note that the appeal site and neighbouring plots are subject to variations in ground levels. Whilst the full details of the appellant’s topographical survey were not submitted with the application, the presence of changing land levels means that direct numerical comparison of ridge heights may not fully reflect the way the building is perceived. Therefore, I find that the dwelling does not appear unduly tall or dominant when read alongside dwellings to the north.

The Council’s concern that the dwelling interrupts an established pattern of development is not supported by the evidence before me. The built environment here is fragmented and varied, with no consistent roofline or defining scale. In this context, the height and bulk of the appeal building do not appear visually intrusive.

Having considered all the evidence, including my site observations, I am not persuaded that the design, scale, or height of the dwelling causes material harm to the character or appearance of the area. [name] acknowledge that the development immediately to the north is more uniform in character and appearance, and the appeal dwelling does not reflect this, it does not automatically follow that the development is harmful. The surrounding context is varied in built form and architectural style, and the development fits comfortably within this mixed pattern without appearing unduly prominent. Although it differs from earlier approvals, those permissions do not preclude acceptable alternative designs, and the dwelling integrates satisfactorily with its surroundings.

Consequently, I therefore conclude that the development does not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. This it complies with Policy CDNP3 of the WLP which requires, amongst other things, all development to be of a high standard of design and be designed to respect or enhance the character of the area, having regard to issues, including siting, layout, height, scale, massing, orientation, landscaping and use of materials.

For the above reasons, the proposed change of use would be in conflict with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight which indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.