Appeal 6002983

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 residents with specific regard to outlook.

The host dwelling is a semi-detached 2-storey house within a suburban residential area where the properties are all of a similar functional vernacular. The properties are set back from the road behind front gardens or off-road parking, and the majority have driveways to the side which create space between semi-detached pairs.

The positioning of the dwellings along [name] and [name], the road to the rear of the appeal site, shows a uniformity in rear elevations, and this creates the impression of openness and spaciousness across the rear gardens especially above the boundary fences. This is emphasised by the properties following the slope of the land with the host dwelling at a higher level to the adjacent 27 [name], and the [name] properties to the rear at a higher level again. The visual and spatial relief created by this large area of rear gardens (RG area) is important to the character of this otherwise relatively densely developed area and is repeated throughout the locality.

It was observed during the site visit that although there are varying examples of side elevations enclosing the side driveway both at 1 and 2 storeys1, there are no 2 storey rear extensions protruding into the RG area; thus, the characteristic openness of the rear gardens is preserved. 1 Including those identified by the appellant at 17 [name], and 3, 35, 43 and 47 [name].

The proposal would extend the host dwelling to the side and rearwards by 2- storeys. As a property located centrally along [name], the 2-storey rear extension would be highly visible across the gardens creating a visual and physical incursion which would curtail the spacious relief the open character of the rear gardens. This would result in a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area.

It is appreciated the rear of the proposed extension would not be visible from the public realm. But due to the topography, number of dwellings that back onto the RG area and the open views across it, the proposal would be highly visible to local residents and permanently alter the character of this important spatial break.

Due to the change in topography, other examples in the area, and the proposed setback position of the front elevation of the extension. It is unlikely the proposal would have a terracing effect with No. 27. It is not therefore, considered that the proposal would harm the street scene of [name]. Nevertheless, this does not negate the harm identified in relation to the rear part of the proposal.

Notwithstanding the impact on the character of the area, it is recognised that the proposal would be of a size and form, although large, not unusual for semi-detached properties of this nature. In isolation the proposal would not be disproportionate to the host dwelling or the semi-detached pair and would be in keeping in terms of materials and design. So, it could comply with Telford and Wrekin Local Plan (LP) Policies BE2 i. and BE2 iii. However, this does not overcome the harm identified in relation to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Accordingly, the proposal would fail to comply with [name] BE1 i. and BE2 ii. as far as they require new development to respect and respond positively to its context and the character of the area.

The proposal would extend the full length and beyond the single storey element of 27 [name]. Due to the topography, the rear facing window in the single storey element of No. 27 already has a compromised outlook in comparison to other properties in the area. This would be further exacerbated by the proposal, which although set back from the shared boundary would be 2-storeys and so would have a looming and oppressive presence. This would create a physical sense of enclosure for those using that window. Therefore, taking a precautionary position, due to the permanence of that proposed, such an impact could harm the usability of the room the window serves, thereby detrimentally effecting the living conditions of the occupants of No. 27.

[name]-947-006 shows the 45-degree span from the window in No. 27. However, this is only part of the consideration in terms of outlook and does not consider the cumulative effect the difference in ground levels and the proposed physical form could have on the outlook from the already compromised window.

The 2 properties on [name] to the rear of the appeal site, have clear views from their upper floor windows across the site. The proposal would extend towards them and so would be visually apparent. However due to the raised level of the [name] properties, the length of the gardens involved and that the extension would be positioned opposite the space between the 2 houses in question, I am satisfied the impact on the outlook from the rear of those properties would not be so great as to make the living conditions of those properties untenable.

However, the lack of harm in relation to the [name] properties does not negate the harm identified in relation to No. 27. Accordingly, from the evidence provided, the proposal would cause harm to the living conditions of the occupants of 27 [name] with specific regard to outlook. So would not comply with LP Policy BE1 xi. and BE2 iv. insofar as they seek new development to not prejudice existing surrounding uses and the amenity of neighbouring properties.

The Council has referred to [name] SP1 and SP4 within its decision notice. Policy SP1 deals specifically with spatial strategy so is not determinative in either issue. [name] SP4 requires development to accord with the development plan, as discussed in the main issues.

Harm has not been identified in relation to parking, highway safety, drainage, ecology, and flooding. However, a lack of harm cannot, by definition, weigh for or against the proposal.

For the reasons given above the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no sufficiently weighted material considerations, including the Framework, which would indicate a decision otherwise. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.