Appeal 6003896

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with particular regard to outlook, sunlight and privacy.

The appeal site comprises a two storey, semi-detached dwelling with an outrigger shared with the adjoining house in a residential area. There is a single storey flat roof projection on the outrigger and a covered courtyard area to the side. There are various styles of buildings in the vicinity, but the property sits within a run of three pairs of semi-detached houses of similar character and appearance, and it maintains a symmetry with the dwelling it is attached to. Some buildings nearby have been extended, but these are predominantly single storey additions.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document 2 [name] 2007 does not prohibit two storey or side additions in principle or require a strict replication of the original built form. However, it states that extensions must be harmonious in character, scale, form and materials with the existing dwelling. Further, the National Planning Policy Framework encourages good design.

The proposal is for a part single and part two storey rear and side extension. The replacement of the outrigger with a hipped roof extension and parapet party wall would create an awkward and unsympathetic rear roof arrangement, detrimental to the visual symmetry of the semi-detached building. Further, the varying heights of the two-storey extension and parapet wall would be harmfully at odds with the coherent appearance of the existing pair of dwellings.

The proposed addition would be significantly set back from the principal elevation of the building, with materials to match the existing house. Nevertheless, the rearmost part of the proposed extension would be wider than the existing house with a roof and apex projecting beyond the existing roof slope. Due to its width, height and position, the proposed two storey extension would appear bolted on to the dwelling, appearing incongruous in views between the buildings from [address] and [address].

The entrance would be relocated from the side of the building to the front of the side extension, and the size and types of windows would differ from those on the existing house. As they would be substantially rearward of the original dwelling, with the side windows only visible in glimpsed views, these design features in themselves would not unduly harm the appearance of the building.

Overall, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. This would be contrary to Policy DM1 of the Council’s Development Management Plan 2014 (DMP). This requires the design of new developments to promote the character of the locality, including having a positive relationship with existing and nearby buildings, amongst other things.

The adjacent property at [address] (No 35) has a single storey conservatory which wraps around the side and rear of the dwelling. The part of it which adjoins the appeal property has a wall with narrow obscure glazed windows above and a steeply sloped glazed roof.

The Essex Design Guide 2018 states that local authorities will usually only approve a planning application if it will not have an adverse effect on the sunlight received by neighbouring properties. It also emphasises the importance of rear privacy, amongst other things.

The proposal would bring built form much closer to the property at No 35, with the two-storey part being over 5.7m deep and over 7m high. Although it would be set back 1m from the mutual boundary, the higher part of the proposed development would be sited alongside the neighbouring conservatory. Due to its height, scale and proximity to No 35, the proposed extension would create an unacceptable sense of enclosure to neighbouring occupiers when using their conservatory.

Further, the proposed addition would lie south of the house at No 35. Therefore, because of its size, position and orientation relative to the neighbouring conservatory, the scheme would cause harmful overshadowing of this room for at least part of sunny days.

The rear facing bedroom windows would overlook the garden of No 35 to a degree. However, this is not unusual in a residential area and as such would not cause a harmful loss of privacy.

The height of the extension and the presence of first floor bathroom and en-suite windows facing No 35 would create some perception of loss of privacy for the occupiers of this property. Nevertheless, the windows could be obscure glazed and fixed shut which could be secured via a condition. Therefore, the proposed upper floor side windows would not cause unacceptable overlooking of No 35.

Overall, whilst the proposed development would not cause a harmful loss of privacy to the occupants of No 35, it would harm their outlook and cause an unacceptable loss of sunlight. This would be contrary to Policy DM1 of the DMP where it requires proposals to promote visual amenity and have a positive relationship with nearby buildings.

The proposal would make more efficient use of residential land, improving the functionality of the dwelling to provide modernised living space. However, these benefits do not outweigh the harms I have found above.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including heritage assets, landscape, amenity space provision, highway safety, parking, ecology, drainage and impacts on the occupiers of [address]. Nonetheless, even if I were to agree with the Council on these points, the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the proposed scheme.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.