Appeal 6003385

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the two storey rear extension. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted, insofar as it relates to the dropped kerb at [site address] , [site address] , Evesham, Worcestershire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/02264/HP and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings as far as they are relevant to the dropped kerb, and all elements regarding the two storey rear extension disregarded: 705/005; 705/002 [name] and 705/006.

The visibility splays shown on drawing no.705/006 shall be free of any obstruction exceeding 0.6m in height and shall be retained as such thereafter.

The parking spaces identified on drawing no.705/002 [name] shall not be used until the first 5m of the vehicle access and parking area when measured from the edge of the highway has been surfaced in a bound material, and this surface shall thereafter be retained.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Wychavon District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The appeal submission included additional plans which do not physically alter the proposed development but rather seek to clarify elements of that proposed. Their inclusion as part of the submission would not be prejudicial to any other parties. They have therefore been considered in this decision.

For the following reasons, I find the proposed dropped kerb acceptable, and it is clearly severable both physically and functionally from the proposed rear extension. Therefore, I intend to issue a split decision in this case and grant planning permission for the dropped kerb.

The Council has not found harm in relation to the drop kerb element of the proposal and there is nothing before me to conclude otherwise. This element of the proposal is therefore acceptable.

Consequently, the main issues are the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, and the living conditions of the occupants of 8 Besscaps with specific regard to access to light and outlook from its habitable rooms.

The appeal site consists of a semi-detached 2 storey dwelling set back from the road. It is part of 2 pairs of semi-detached properties of the same age and style, located at the edge of [site address] village. This row of houses has a reasonable level of uniformity across the front and rear elevations. Their key design elements are the tall chimney stacks, hipped roofs, and simple form with a forward-facing gables and brick detailing. All have relatively small, single storey, flat roofed extensions to the rear and a high level of intervisibility across their long rear gardens and open views to the countryside beyond.

The proposal would replace the existing rear extension with a full width, double storey extension. It would have a flat roof and provide additional living space and allow the bathroom to be moved upstairs.

The flat roof would have eaves which are higher than those of the host dwelling, as shown on the plans, and so the proposal would protrude above the side elevation roof slope. This would create a contrived junction between the proposed and existing roof forms which would be visually jarring and emphasise the lack of cohesion between the existing property and the unsympathetic form of that proposed. This would make the proposed extension appear overly boxy and bulky so could not be considered to integrate well with the design of the host dwelling. It would overwhelm the host dwelling, creating a dominant and unsightly addition which would harm its character and appearance.

That the proposed brick would match the existing so would be a satisfactory finish to the proposed extension. But this does not overcome the negative impact its size and bulk would have.

The appellant has noted that a rear extension of a similar depth could be built under permitted development. Although it is not the place of this decision to confirm what would constitute permitted development, the evidence before me does not show how development achieved under such methods would be more harmful to character and appearance of the host dwelling than that proposed. Therefore, this does not outweigh the harm identified.

Accordingly, the proposal would significantly harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and fail to comply with South Worcestershire Development Plan (DP) Policy SWDP 21 as far as it requires new development to be of a high design quality which integrates effectively and appropriate to its setting. It would also fail to accord with the design considerations set out in the [name] Planning Document (SPD)

Due to the location of the proposed extension issues with light and outlook would only affect those windows in the rear elevation. They consist of 3 windows and a glazed door at ground floor level, and 3 windows at first floor level. As the middle upper and lower windows and glazed door are for hallways, and the ground floor windows nearest the host dwelling for a bathroom, there are only 3 windows which could be considered to serve habitable rooms.

Due to the width and orientation of No. 8, the upper and lower window furthest from the host dwelling would be at such a distance that any impact on light or outlook would be minimal and not harmful to the overall living conditions of the occupants of that property.

The upper floor window nearest the host dwelling would be the most impacted by that proposed. The Council and appellant agree this window serves a bedroom and the proposal would breach the 45-degree code as set in the SPD. Although this is a reasonable place to start, the impact on light and outlook needs to be considered specific to the individual circumstances of the proposal. The proposal would be visible and would reduce light from the side to the window in question. However, the outlook from that window is open, wide ranging and un-impinged in all other directions. Further due to the orientation of the host dwelling and No. 8, this window is southerly facing, and the extension would be to the east. This means the window currently gets a high level of daylight and sunlight which would only be partly affected in the earlier part of the day by the proposed extension. Therefore, in this instance, it is found that although the proposed extension would affect the window in question, an adequate level of light and outlook could still be maintained for users of that room and the property as a whole.

As such the proposal would not have an effect on the access to light and outlook to such a degree as to make the living conditions for occupants of No. 8 untenable. It would therefore comply with DP Policy SWDP 21, insofar as it seeks to ensure adequate levels of living conditions for neighbours.

The appeal site is in the Cotswolds National Landscape (NL). NLs are designated for the purposes of conserving and enhancing natural beauty and Section 245 ([name]) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 places a duty upon me to further these purposes in this decision. The Council did not object to the proposal in this regard and I agree that due to the small scale and siting of the proposed extension and dropped kerb, the natural beauty of the NL would not be adversely affected.

The Council has also not found harm in relation to drainage, highways, parking, or the nearby public right of way. However, a lack of harm, by definition, cannot weigh for or against a proposal.

The Parish Council has not objected but also has not raised any matters which would outweigh the harm identified.

It is unfortunate the appellant does not consider that the Council paid proper attention to the submission at application stage or were given fair opportunity to amend the scheme. This does not, however, impact the planning merits of the proposed development. This would also be the case with the issues the appellant has raised concerning planning fees and resubmissions.

The Council and Local Highway Authority have suggested several conditions which I have considered against advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and Planning Practice Guidance and have applied only those that relate to the proposed drop kerb.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition is imposed requiring the dropped kerb to be carried out in accordance with specific plans as this provides certainty.

2 conditions to ensure highway safety have also been imposed. One to ensure the maintenance of the visibility splays, and the other to ensure surfacing materials of the driveway and parking area are not dragged onto the highway.

[name] have found for the appellant in relation to the second main issue, this would be a lack of harm and thus, by definition, in capable of weighing against the harm that I have found regarding the first main issue. Consequently, the proposed extensions would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

For the reasons given above and having considered the development plan along with all other relevant material considerations including the approach in the Framework, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed insofar as it relates to the dropped kerb and dismissed insofar as it relates to the two storey rear extension.