Appeal 6002926

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; and, • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to access to outlook and sunlight.

The appeal property is a detached bungalow within a residential street that is largely characterised by single-storey dwellings with consistent hipped roofs and similar ridge heights. Whilst there are limited examples of first floor enlargements and roof additions further along The Driveway from the appeal property, the broader uniformity in the scale and roofscape of buildings contributes to the orderly and spacious appearance of this part of the streetscene.

Although detached, the appeal property appears well related to the semi-detached pairs which sit either side of it, sharing with them similar roof forms, the angle of the pitch of the front slope and front‐facing gable features. These factors add to the visual coherence of the group and collectively reinforce the spacious character of the area.

Provision RDG7 of the Residential Design Guidance (2013) (‘RDG’) states that the design of roof forms should be compatible primarily with the dwelling but also informed by an area’s prevailing character. For extensions, the roof should be proportionate and not top heavy, prominent or dominant.

The proposal would raise the main ridge and increase the pitch of the front roof slope, extending this altered roof form over an existing rear extension to create first‐floor accommodation. While the position of the ridgeline would remain and the hipped shape would be retained at the front, the increased height and altered pitches of the proposed roof and enlarged front gable feature would harmfully erode the established uniformity of this group.

The height and shape of the proposal would appear disproportionate in relation to neighbouring buildings and would visually compete with the consistent pattern along this part of the streetscene. Given the siting and the appeal property’s appearance as part of a largely uniform group, these changes would be prominent and incongruous, causing harm to the streetscene which the use of matching materials would do little to overcome.

The evidence refers to pre-application advice provided by the Council regarding the acceptability of changes to the ridge height. However, details of the pre-application proposal or the specific advice provided are not before me. Consequently, I give this very limited weight in my consideration.

Concluding on this main issue, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would conflict with relevant provisions of Policy EC2 of the Castle Point Local Plan (1998) (‘Local Plan’). Amongst other things, this policy seeks to ensure proposals do not harm the character of their surroundings. There would also be conflict with the advice contained in the RDG.

Provision RDG3 of the RDG states that proposals resulting in excessive overshadowing or dominance to an adjoining property will be refused. Section 5.5 explains that dwellings can often be adversely affected by proposals that extend significantly beyond walls of neighbouring dwellings, creating an oppressive and overdominant feature. To ensure adverse impacts are minimised, the extent of projection beyond walls of adjoining properties will be a consideration and each case will be evaluated on its individual merits. Read as a whole, this section of the RDG is applicable to assessing the effect of extensions, including the appeal proposal, on neighbouring living conditions.

The appeal property has a single-storey rear extension which projects a significant distance beyond the rear elevations of both the adjoining properties 44 and 48 The Driveway (No.s 44 and 48), which do not have formal rear extensions. Although the pitched roof form would provide some mitigation from the increase in height and bulk and this would be set away from the common boundaries, the proposed enlargement of the roof over the existing extension would nevertheless result in a noticeable change.

The rear elevations of these adjoining properties have windows set away from the boundaries shared with the appeal site. Outlook from those rear windows is primarily oriented directly across their respective, lengthy rear gardens. The proposal would not unduly restrict this and would not harmfully reduce access to outlook in that regard. However, within their rear gardens, the proposal would be more apparent and unduly dominant, causing harm to living conditions for occupiers at Nos 44 and 48.

The Council’s concern with regard to overshadowing relates only to No 44. This neighbouring property has a fairly wide rear elevation featuring a large window set some distance away from the shared boundary, and beyond this is a further set of patio doors. These openings appear to serve main habitable living spaces at this property. It also has a single narrower window at its side wall, facing the appeal site, however the purpose of the room it serves is not clear.

Although the design and separation distances involved would provide some mitigation to the extent of overshadowing caused to habitable rooms, there is no technical evidence to demonstrate that those spaces would retain access to acceptable levels of sunlight. Consequently, I cannot be satisfied that the proposal would avoid harm to living conditions of occupiers of No 44 in this respect.

The rear garden to No 44 is a considerable size and length. Accordingly, whilst the proposal may cause more shadow to be cast onto that space, occupiers would nevertheless retain access to ample garden space which would remain unaffected by the proposal. However, the absence of harm in this respect is a neutral factor rather than a benefit, so does not alter my overall conclusion on this main issue.

Concluding on this main issue, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to access to outlook and sunlight. This would conflict with provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework insofar as it seeks to ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. There would also be conflict with the guidance contained in the RDG.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.