Appeal 6003195

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension upon the living conditions of No.[address], with particular regard to sense of enclosure, access to light and outlook.

The appeal site appears to have been constructed as part of a residential housing estate of the late twentieth century. The housing development has a very planned layout with pairs of semi-detached dwellings placed around a circular crescent with dwellings following the curvature of the Crescent and having similar front and side setbacks with front gardens and gaps between dwellings which allow views to the tops of trees in rear gardens. The designs are very similar and distinctive for this development with one half of the semi-detached dwelling with its front and rear façade projecting forward of the remaining half of the pair of semi-detached dwellings. Both dwellings have lean to roof forms which are bookends of each other, however the forward projecting half has a lower apex to the remaining half giving an interesting design treatment which is very locally distinctive. Gardens to the rear are relatively small and shallow which is a common characteristic throughout the estate.

In assessing living conditions, the Melton Local Plan (LP) Saved Policy D1 is a design led policy that seeks that proposals need to consider the amenity of existing and proposed residents. The Melton Borough Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) also gives further guidance with regards to extensions and their potential impact upon living conditions. Appeal Decision: 6003195

Beginning with sense of enclosure and outlook, the single storey rear extension would be erected for approximately 4.5 metres along the side boundary, would have a minimum height of 2.6 metres. The neighbouring dwelling has a small area of hardstanding to the rear of the dwelling which appeals to be used for sitting out, etc. Due to the unique positioning of the dwellings, the appeal dwelling has a rear façade that is set back past the neighbouring rear wall which accentuates the length of the proposed extension. Within the context of having shallow gardens, the proposed extension would take up a large proportion of the depth of the rear garden which is of similar size to the neighbouring garden at No.21. The presence of the proposed extension would be very noticeable to the occupiers of No.23 with the increased massing, no setback and the presence of the proposed extension which will be a blank wall for much of the depth of the garden would have a detrimental impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents and cause a detrimental sense of enclosure and loss of outlook. The increased presence of a long and tall blank wall on the boundary would present a dominant and oppressive appearance to the garden of the neighbouring property resulting in adverse harm to living conditions with regards to outlook and sense of enclosure.

I acknowledge discussion with regards to the rear window of the neighbouring dwelling and the 45 degree measure which has been utilised in the SPD to show that the proposed extension intersects this line. Tools such as the 45 degree measure only replicates ideal environments, and that when considering context, that measures in the SPD might not work or require a more subjective assessment which is the case here considering that both rear facades are not on the same plane. I believe the latter to be the case here, given the unusual relationship of the appeal site and No.23. The increased setback of the neighbouring dwelling would mean that the extension is perceived to me much more elongated causing further harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring dwelling.

I also acknowledge comments in the [name] of Case (SoC) around the General Permitted Development Order 1995 which allows extensions of up to 3 metres without the need for planning consent.1 It is stated that such an extension would also breach the 45 degree rule and thus they should be treated the same and that the 45 degree rule should not be used as the sole reason for refusal. The reason for refusal does not mention the 45 degree rule and has not been the sole reason for refusing the proposal, with considerations around context, depth, setback also coming into the determination. Additionally, the proposed extension is not a modest or a comparable extension as it is clearly larger than what is permitted in the GDPO as well as being longer as a result of the difference in setback of the rear facades.

Turning to overshadowing and loss of light, the appeal is not accompanied by any shadow diagrams or similar. Given the position of the sun in relation to the appeal site, shadow cast would be towards the front and moving towards the north pf the property. As such I do not consider that there is any conflict as a result of overshadowing or loss of light.

I also note that in the [name] that there is reference to other planning determinations such as 27 and [address]. Whilst both of these extensions may have breached this 45 degree rule, as discussed previously this is not the 1 Unless there are other tools preventing permitted developments, such as conditions or Article 4 directions etc. Appeal Decision: 6003195 determining factor as to whether the extension is appropriate. Whilst there is limited information to each of these permissions, No.27 is extended from one of the dwellings that has a rear wall that is set forward (similarly to No.23) so the extension doesn’t appear as elongated as proposed in this appeal. No.29 also does not appear to be as long as proposed. As such the presence of these extensions is not similar to what is proposed in this appeal and does not weigh in favour of the proposed scheme.

Given my above reasoning, the scheme as proposed would be excessive in size and cause significant detriment to the living conditions of the existing residents at No.[address], in terms of sense of enclosure and outlook. The scheme would therefore be contrary to LP Policy D1 as specified previously.

[name] have agreed with the Appellant that the scheme would not cause adverse detriment to living conditions as a result of overshadowing, this is not sufficient to outweigh the harm caused as a result of sense of enclosure and outlook. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.