Appeal 6003287

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and its effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook and daylight.

The appeal property is a semi-detached two storey dwelling. It is located in a largely residential area characterised by the presence of a range of dwelling types, including detached single and two storey dwellings, albeit the majority of dwellings in the area comprise semi-detached and terraced two storey dwellings.

Like most of its neighbours, the appeal dwelling is set back from the road behind a front garden and parking area and has a garden area to the rear. It is located on a corner plot, providing vehicular access to both the front and rear gardens.

The presence of front gardens and parking areas combines with the presence of grass verges and the setting back of dwellings from the road to provide for a sense of greenery and spaciousness. Whilst many houses in the area appear to have been altered and/or extended over the years, such changes tend to appear in keeping with host dwellings and their surroundings.

The appeal dwelling has an existing two storey side extension. The setting-back of the existing extension from the dwelling’s front elevation, its hipped roof - which steps down from that of the original hipped roof - and the use of similar stone and slate materials to the host dwelling, results in it appearing as a subordinate addition.

The proposed development would result in a large and wide front porchway projecting well-forward of the appeal dwelling’s front elevation. I find that the porch would step so far forward of the existing front bay window that it would appear as a dominant feature. The harm arising from this would be exacerbated by the width, the overall scale and the prominent position of the porch.

Also, whereas the existing dwelling has a simple, legible hipped roof with, as noted above, a subordinate hipped roof to the extension, the proposed development would involve the introduction of new gable roofs. I consider that these would serve to jar with the appearance of the existing roof form, resulting in a mis-match of roof-forms. The visual impact of this would combine with that of the proposed porch to result in an incongruous form of development.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Policies DS1 and DS3 of the [name] DPD1, which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

The proposed rear extension would rise to two stories in height and would project a significant distance from the rear elevation of the appeal dwelling. Also, the proposed rear extension would be situated in close proximity to the rear garden of Number [address].

I consider that this combination of height, projection and proximity would result in the proposed rear extension dominating the outlook to the east from No 21’s rear garden to an overbearing degree. The harm arising from this would be exacerbated as a result of the proposal being located to the south-east of No 21. As such, the siting of the proposal would be likely to result in a reduction in the overall amount of daylight reaching the rear of No 21, most notably during the morning hours.

Consequently, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook and daylight, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Policy DS5 of the [name], which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.

In support of his case, the appellant refers to the development potential that might arise via permitted development rights. I note this, but confirm that I have considered the appeal on the basis of the plans before me.

For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed.