Appeal 6003193

The appeal is dismissed.

A consultation draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 16 December 2025 but given that this is at the consultation stage I do not consider it necessary to invite comments from the parties at this time.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] and [address] with regard to outlook and daylight and sunlight.

The appeal site comprises a detached bungalow located in a short cul-de-sac with two other properties, a pair of semi-detached houses, 1 and [address]. The front elevation, including the front door is on the side of the house facing the rear gable of [address], a detached two storey house with a number of windows facing the appeal site. No 1A has a small rear garden with a high rear boundary fence on the other side of which is [address] which comprises of fairly new detached properties.

The existing bungalow extends further to the rear than [address] and although the proposal would not add to the footprint of the bungalow, the increase in height, close to the boundary would enlarge the property so that its height and length would have an overbearing impact and be visually intrusive when viewed from the rear windows and from within the rear garden. Also, due to the orientation of the properties and their relationship to one another, the increase in height would have an adverse effect on daylight to the rear of No 1 and in the afternoons lead to a loss of sunlight. The narrow area of land between No 1A and No 1 would do little to lessen the impact.

The Council’s SPD refers to the 45 degree rule in the context of single storey rear extensions (SP3) and two storey and first floor rear extensions (SP4). The latter states that on a detached property no part of a two storey extension should cross the point at which a 45 degree line in the horizontal plane is drawn from the nearest part of a habitable room on the immediately adjacent dwelling. The proposal would be in breach of this guideline. The design, height and hipped roof design would not mitigate the impact sufficiently to overcome the harm arising from this.

The rear elevation of [address] to the front elevation of the appeal bungalow. The space standards in the Council’s SPD1 indicate that the distance between habitable rooms windows should be 21 metres and between habitable room windows and a blank gable, the distance should be a minimum of 13 metres. In this case, there would be ground floor windows to No 1A and roof lights in the roof plane sloping away from No 470. The distance at both ground and first floor level would be smaller than the lesser of these two.

A brick wall with timber fencing above defines the boundary between No 1A and No 470. Any impact of the proposal on the ground floor of No 470 would be lessened by this. However, notwithstanding the space standards and that the proposed roof to No 1A would slope away from No 470, its proximity would create a very poor outlook. There are numerous windows in the rear elevation of No 470 and these together with its short rear garden and resulting space between the properties would mean that the proposed taller dwelling would appear overbearing.

Consequently, although the design of the resulting dwelling at 1A would minimise window openings, other than roof lights, it would still be a two-storey property in very close proximity. I consider that the outlook from No 470 would be that of a visually intrusive building in sharp contrast to the much lower bungalow that exists now. Also, due to the close proximity of the two properties, the increased height would impact on daylight and, during the mornings, sunlight.

I also note that the front elevations of properties on [address] appear fairly close when viewed from the appeal site, No 1 is set forward in the road so is the closest. However, it is not so close to result in undue overlooking nor would the proposal harm the outlook from [address]. I note that the separation distances in this regard are slightly below the SPD standard but this is not sufficient to cause undue harm.

I have found that the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] and No [address] would be harmed with regard to outlook and daylight and sunlight. This would conflict with Preston Local Plan 2012-262 policies AD1(a) / (b) and EN9 and Preston Local Plan 20043 saved policies D13 and H8 and the Residential and Extensions SPD4, which collectively seek to protect residential amenity, amongst other things. 1 Preston City Council – [name] & Alterations Supplementary Planning Document Final Version for Cabinet 2013 (SPD). 2 Preston City Council – Preston Local Plan 2012-26 Site Allocations & Development Management Policies Adopted 2 July 2015. 3 Preston City Council – Preston Local Plan 1996 – 2006, adopted 26 April 2004. 4 Preston City Council – [name] & Alterations Supplementary Planning Document Final Version for [name] 2013 (SPD).

The proposed works are required to accommodate a disabled person on the ground floor whilst carer’s living space can also be provided within the property on the first floor. The resulting property would provide ground floor accommodation to suit a person needing care whilst the first floor would allow the appellant to provide care for her relative. [name] appreciate that these works would avoid the need for institutional care, the weight I can afford it is only moderate. However, this does not overcome the substantial harm that would be caused to both neighbouring properties.

I note concern about the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. The resulting property would be a much larger dwelling in terms of its height than the existing one and so have a greater impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. However, it would not be of a size to appear unacceptably inappropriate in this area. A suitably worded condition could address details of facing materials.

I note that the proposal has amended an earlier refused scheme. I have only limited details of that and note that some aspects may have overcome some of the Council’s reasons for refusing that application. The appellant refers to previous extensions at [address] and [address] but works carried out to neighbouring properties do not alter my assessment which is based on the details before me and my observations on site.

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. Consequently, the appeal should be dismissed.