Appeal 6003130

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the proposal on the application form is long and descriptive. As a result, I have taken the description from the decision notice which is more succinct but still accurately reflects the development applied for.

The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at 82 The Butts, with regards to outlook and light.

The appeal site forms a semi-detached pair with the neighbouring property, 82 The Butts. Both dwellings have a two-storey outrigger to the rear under a pitched roof, with a single storey lean-to projection on the far end.

The outriggers do not extend across the whole width of the property, resulting in a small open area at the rear of each of the dwellings. There is a low fence separating this area on the appeal site, from the area at the rear of the neighbouring property, 82 The Butts. Single openings serving the dining area and the kitchen of No. 82 face onto this area and there is a bedroom window above.

The proposed two-storey extension would replace the existing single storey projection to provide a bathroom at first floor. The existing outlook from the windows of No. 82 are already restricted by its own outrigger and the existing two-storey outrigger at the appeal site. Extending the two-storey outrigger further will not result in any further loss of outlook to an appreciable extent.

The rear elevations of both properties face north westwards. In the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that the extensions would not result in any overshadowing or meaningful loss of light to the neighbouring property.

However, the single storey extension would be constructed up to the boundary of No.82 and extend out to the end of the two-storey extension. With an eaves height of 2.6 metres, this would significantly enclose the area, create a noticeable tunnel effect and appear overbearing from the ground floor windows of No.82. This loss of outlook would be harmful to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.

The proposal would conflict with saved Policy HE2 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: [name], adopted 2006, and Policies CP27 and CP29 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: [name], adopted June 2014 which seek to ensure that development has an appropriate and sympathetic relationship with its surroundings, including adjoining buildings and prevents localised impacts that can affect the general wellbeing of residents.

The Council accepts that a single storey rear extension projecting 3 metres out from the rear elevation of the property, with an eaves height up to 3 metres, could be built under permitted development (PD)1. Should the appeal fail I am satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect that the appellant would seek to implement PD to extend the property. Consequently, this would represent a viable fallback position.

[name] recognise that the eaves height of the proposed extension is lower than PD would allow, it would extend to almost twice the depth of the PD fallback position. This would create a greater sense of enclosure compared to the PD extension. I have therefore given the fall back position limited weight.

I have taken into consideration the appellant’s need for improved living space. However, the private benefit which would arise from the proposal is not, in this case, sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have found to the living conditions of the neighbours. I also have no compelling evidence before me that the proposal is the only way in which additional accommodation could be achieved. I have given this limited weight.

The lack of harm in respect of highway safety and on other neighbouring properties is a neutral consideration that weighs neither for nor against the proposal.

The appeal site is located within the Butts Conservation Area (CA). The appeal property is one of a coherent group of attractive period semi-detached dwellings bordering the northwest side of an open green space, The Butts. The single storey extension would not be visible from any public vantage point. The two-storey extension would be visible only at an oblique angle, from the road to the front of the property. However, as it would be located to the rear and elongate an existing rear projection, if would not have any effect on the way in which the CA is experienced as a whole. With reference to the duty in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. 1 under The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015

Although it was not a reason for refusal, the Council’s officer report refers to the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling. [name] been minded to allow the appeal, it would have been necessary for me to examine this in further detail. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, further consideration is not required.

The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan. The limited weight I have given to other considerations, do not outweigh this conflict. Consequently, with reference to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, the appeal is dismissed.