Appeal 6003976

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are: a. the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; b. the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers; and c. whether the proposal would provide sufficient amenity space for future occupiers.

The appeal concerns extensions to an existing single storey dwelling within a residential area. The property is notably smaller and on a narrower plot than the property to the south west, whilst to the north east is an undeveloped parcel of land with tree cover, beyond which is further housing. Properties in the area are generally set back from the road, including the appeal property. There is an overall feeling of spaciousness in the area caused by distances between houses, the set-back of houses and the spacing of buildings being proportionate to the size and scale of their plots and other buildings. The wider area is identified in the [site address] Neighbourhood Development Plan (2017) as a character area that sees generally large detached houses set in their own plots, at low density.

The proposed development would see the demolition of an existing conservatory at the rear of the property. The property would be extended with an additional storey above the existing building, so resulting in a two-storey house. This would have a hipped roof, with accommodation within the roof space. An existing front extension and garage would be demolished and a new front extension built which would be the width of the house; this would be single storey with a crown roof.

The proposed works are very substantial additions to a modest property which, at present, sits comfortably within the limited width of the existing plot. The creation of a two-storey house of the depth proposed, with pitched roof above that, would create a building of considerable size that relates poorly to the size and proportions of the site. Two storey elevations in such close proximity to the boundaries – with a length of around 14m – would create a house that appears cramped to the plot, with the simple rectangular form of the enlarged house emphasising the bulk and dominance of the building. These matters would mean the extended property would sit uncomfortably in the area, which is characterised by buildings that are in spacious settings and relate well to their garden plots.

The proposed front extension would further emphasise the unsuitable scale and form of the proposals in relation to the plot and the wider area. A single storey projection of such width and depth with a flat-topped crown roof is not a typical feature for what is shown to be a two-storey house of conventional pitched roof design. Furthermore, in this instance it particularly does not reflect the character of the wider area, with no obvious cue for such an approach in design, form or scale of front extension.

The National Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure well-designed places and high quality in design. The general objective of Policies CS21 and CS24 of the [name] (2012) is to seek high quality design in new development, which respects the character of the area and has regard to the townscape. Policy BE1 of the Neighbourhood Plan requires residential development to complement the character of the area in which it lies. For the reasons given, the scale, form and design of the extensions proposed in the appeal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and hence conflict with these policies. b) Effect on living conditions

The proposed extensions to the property would result in a two-storey elevation close to the boundary with [address] to the south west, with a substantial depth to that elevation. [address] is divided into flats, and I saw that these flats are angled towards the appeal site.

I could appreciate that the close proximity of the extension to this boundary, when combined with the height of the property and the length of elevation, would lead to a dominant outlook from the adjoining flats. This would have an overbearing effect which would be harmful to living conditions, and would be contrary to the guidance in the Council’s Outlook, Amenity, Privacy and Daylight Supplementary Planning Document 2022 (SPD) which seeks to avoid an adverse effect on outlook from windows. It would thus also conflict with Policy CS21 of the [name] that requires new development to achieve a satisfactory relationship to adjoining properties. The existence of the hedging between the properties would not mitigate this impact, as the scale of the built development would be clearly evident behind that retained vegetation.

There are currently windows in the side elevation of the single storey property looking towards [address]. The windows in the first floor side elevation of the proposal would be obscure glazed and serve non-habitable rooms. This would be sufficient to ensure no actual or perceived overlooking. The rear-facing windows at first floor would not look directly towards the adjoining property or garden. Thus, the proposals would not lead to a loss of privacy. However, this matter does not outweigh the harm that arises due to the overbearing effect, and the conflict with the development plan and the SPD. Thus, on the second main issue it is concluded there would be harm to the living conditions of adjoining occupiers. c) Amenity space

Appendix 1 of the SPD sets out recommended minimum layout dimensions for development, which include minimum garden amenity areas. For large family houses (which would include the appeal proposal if built) the SPD states there should be ‘a suitable area of private garden amenity in scale with the building E.g. greater than the gross floor area of the building’.

The application when submitted to the Council accepted that the amenity space to the appeal property would, if the proposed extension was built, be less than the gross floor area of the building. The Council considers this would conflict with the SPD. Whilst the SPD says that Appendix 1 are minimum levels, the SPD is also clear that the dimensions are for advice only and evidence of design quality and compatibility with context will be of overriding importance. In particular, I note that the guidance for garden amenity says that a ‘suitable area’ of garden should be provided, and the dimension for being greater than the building is prefaced as an example to achieve this (‘E.g.’), not a requirement.

In this appeal the garden to the house would be large – the application to the Council stated this would be around 241m2 – and the shortfall against the SPD would be around 28m2. I saw at my site visit the 241m2 garden would be a good-sized space that would be an appropriate area for a garden, of suitable proportions that relates well to the house. The numerical shortfall from the minimum level set out in the SPD is therefore acceptable in this instance.

On the third issue I therefore conclude the proposal would provide sufficient amenity space for future occupiers. Hence there would not be any conflict with Policy CS21 of the [name] insofar as it seeks to ensure schemes provide appropriate levels of private amenity space.

I have found the proposal is acceptable in a number of respects. However, the harm arising on the first two main issues and the resulting conflict with the development plan is sufficient to outweigh those matters. Hence, for the reasons given, my overall conclusion is that the appeal should be dismissed.