Appeal 6003508

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with particular regard to outlook, sunlight and daylight.

The appeal dwelling is a two storey detached property set in a cul de sac of other similar detached dwellings. The appeal dwelling and its neighbour, No [address] share a boundary and their gardens are side by side, there is a close boarded timber fence separating the properties. To the rear of the properties on [address] are flanked by woodland.

As part of their submission the appellant has provided a Daylight and Sunlight Assessment including shadow diagrams showing the difference between existing and proposed levels of overshadowing of the neighbours’ rear garden area at the time of the spring equinox.

These show that the neighbouring garden would experience increased shadowing and a loss of direct sunlight in the morning during this time of the year. As well as a loss of light and shadowing at midday to No.11’s seating area which is situated adjacent to the common boundary. At 1pm the levels of light and level of overshadowing appear unchanged. [name] note the absence of change in the levels of light received in the early afternoon, neighbouring occupants’ can and should be able to enjoy their rear garden at all times including their seating area, and their enjoyment of the garden would be adversely impacted due to the combination of increased overshadowing and a loss of direct sunlight. I note the appellant highlighting that any loss of light is as a result of No 11’s pergola however, due to its transparent roof and lightweight construction I do not consider this to be the case.

I also note the disagreement between the parties regarding the impact of the woodland to the rear of the site on daylight and sunlight to the rear gardens. From the information before me and my observations on site the presence of the woodland would not alter any impacts from the proposed extension.

The Council have also highlighted that the proposal would harm the outlook from the rear garden of No 11 due to the proposed extension creating a sense of enclosure. However, due to the orientation of the properties, angled away from each other, the extensions distance from the rear elevation of No 11 and the maintenance of the gap between the dwellings the extension would not detrimentally affect the outlook from No 11 and the occupants’ livings conditions would be preserved in this regard.

I acknowledge the appellant outlining that there is precedent of other extensions in the surrounding area and whilst I note other first floor extensions have been carried out at other properties each proposal should be judged on its own merits and its own site specific circumstances.

The appellant has also stated that the proposal would result in a similar relationship as that already present between No 11 and No 10. However, the relationship between the appeal dwelling and No 11 is markedly different due to the nature of their staggered layout as well as their close proximity that I do not consider this to be sufficiently similar.

Therefore, the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with regard to daylight and sunlight. As such the proposal would conflict with Policy CP4 of the Richmondshire Local Plan (2014) as well as the National Planning Policy Framework which both, amongst other things, seek to protect local amenity.

The proposal would not accord with the development plan, when taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations of sufficient magnitude to indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.