Appeal 6003582

The appeal is dismissed.

I have utilised the Council’s description of the proposal as I find it describes the proposal more concisely.

The existing plans (EMP.101.7) do not appear to accurately reflect the existing built form on site given that the conservatory, as built, appears to project further than the current kitchen window which can be gauged by the presence of an external door, to the conservatory, at a right angle to the kitchen window. This is not on the plans.

The main issue is the impact of the proposal upon neighbouring residential amenity with regard to outlook, overbearing scale and unacceptable impact.

The appeal site is a semi-detached residential dwelling which already benefits from extensions including, as confirmed by the appellant, a double storey side extension and an existing single storey rear extension. Based upon the plans before me (EMP.101.7 – existing plans and EMP.101.8 – proposed plans) it is evident that the proposed extension would, cumulatively with the existing extensions, extend in the region of 6 metres from the original rear elevation wall of the host dwelling. I do, however, note the presence of the party wall between the appeal site and its attached dwelling, the existing extensions and their as-built depth.

Despite this, I do not find that the wall, and the existing conservatories, result in an enclosed baseline condition with enclosed outlook by its nature. The joint party wall extends in the region of 4 metres between the properties; the proposal would continue and exceed this notably. Assessing the proposals in the context of the existing extension, and wall, I find that the proposal could not be considered incremental and would be unacceptable, resulting harmful impact to the residential amenity of [address] (no. 6) with regard to outlook and overbearing scale.

I note the appellant’s contention that the Council have taken the 45-degree measurement from the rear of the adjacent conservatory rather than from a habitable room of the main dwelling. I do not have any information as to the connectivity, or use, of the conservatory in the context of the adjacent property but even accepting the appellant’s argument that the conservatory is not classified as a habitable room I still find that the proposal would be unacceptable as a result of height and projection, from the appeal property in relation to impact upon no. 6.

[address], (no. 10) has an external door and window in the side elevation facing towards the appeal proposal. The window in question is linked to the kitchen and is acknowledged to be a secondary window for the habitable room. It is outlined that there is a connection to the dining room to the rear which would act as a primary window which would remain unaffected in terms of light and overbearing impact. There is no breach of the 45-degree code from the primary rear window further supporting there would be no unacceptable loss of light or outlook as a result of this guidance. Whilst the window facing towards the proposal is a secondary window, the proposal would seek to increase the depth of the neighbouring property, from the existing built form, by a further 4 metres (resulting in a cumulative total from the original rear elevation of in the region of 6 metres) immediately along the shared boundary with the appeal site already having been extended, at two storeys, to the side towards no. 10. There would, therefore, be an extension and continuation of built form within close proximity to the kitchen window at no. 10.

I acknowledge that the side elevation window is not the sole source of light to the room in question and that there is a rear facing window, unaffected, by the proposals but based upon the evidence before me it must be kept in mind that overbearingness and impact as to light are separate matters. Whilst the impact with regard to loss of light to the kitchen via the side facing window would be acceptable, I find that the proposal would still result in an unacceptable overbearing impact on the neighbouring amenity, as well as impact upon general outlook, due to the bulk, scale and massing in such close proximity to the side facing window. I find that the proposed single storey extension would, therefore, have an overbearing and unacceptable impact upon no. 10.

I do not find the presence of a secondary window is sufficient to overcome concern as to outlook or overbearingness in that regard. I do not find that the separation highlighted by the appellant materially reduces enclosure or overbearing impact. The proposal, cumulatively with the existing extensions, would be unacceptable seeking to extend further, full width, off the already (side) extended appeal property. It must be taken into account that in assessing extensions their relationship individually, and cumulatively, in the context of the original dwelling, and its relationship with adjacent properties, is of relevance. In this case, cumulatively, the proposals would result in an overall rear projection of in the region of 6 metres from the original rear wall, including utilisation of additional width as a result of the existing side extension up to the shared boundary.

Whilst the area may be characterised by a variety of domestic extensions and rear building lines, the main issue with the proposal is not the principle of an extension. The issues I have identified, for the reasons outlined above, relate to actual impact based upon the site context and relationship of the appeal site, and proposal, with the dwellings either side with regard to the amenity of existing and future occupiers of those properties.

The proposal would be contrary to Walsall Unitary Development Plan 2005 (saved policies) GP2 which seeks to resist development which would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the environment taking into account residential amenity and ENV32 which seeks to avoid proposals which fail to properly take account of the context or surroundings (in this case adjacent residential dwellings). The proposal would be contrary to Black Country Core Strategy 2011 Policy CSP4 and Policy ENV3 which, in terms of overarching objectives, both seek to ensure high quality design.

The proposal would also be contrary to paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 which seeks to create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users as well as being contrary to the Designing Walsall Supplementary Planning Document for [name] 2008, [name], which advises that proposals must ensure that all occupants have a satisfactory level of amenity.

Third party comments have been received from [address] along with photographs which are stated to have been taken from the kitchen towards the appeal site/location of the proposal. I have dealt with matters with regard to light and outlook within the main issues of the decision letter above and I also note that comment is raised with regard to disruption to existing planting and landscaping at the neighbouring property. Landscaping and loss of planting would not, however, be a material planning consideration but, either way, for the reasons outlined above I have found that there is sufficient concern with regard to the impact of the proposals on neighbouring amenity to dismiss this appeal.

For the reasons outlined above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.