Appeal 6004295

The appeal is dismissed.

Following determination of the planning application the appellant has submitted amended plans proposing an extension with a smaller footprint. The Procedural Guide to Planning Appeals – England states that the appeal process should not be used to evolve proposals. The guidance is clear that revision intended to overcome reasons for refusal should normally be tested through a fresh application. The amended plans directly address both reasons for refusal.

Having regard to the Holborn Studios1 judgement which follows on from Wheatcroft2, the nature of the amendments proposed, and in the interests of fairness, I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the plans and information that were before the Council when it made its decision and on which all parties were consulted.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring property 19 Harvesters with regard to outlook; and • The effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host property and area.

Neighbouring the appeal site is No 19 which appears to be a handed version of the host property and benefits from a habitable room window looking down its garden 1 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin) 2 Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [JPL, 1982, P37] next to the shared boundary between the two dwellings. The proposed extension would extend along the boundary with No 19. This proximity combined with its height and projection would form an overbearing feature creating a sense of enclosure that would have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of this property by virtue of loss of outlook.

As such, the proposed development would cause significant harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 19 contrary to Policy 72 of the [site address] Local Plan Review (1994) (LP) which, amongst other things, seeks to protect the amenity of adjoining properties.

The appeal site comprises a dwelling that forms part of a cluster of four dwellings accommodated within one building located within a predominantly residential area. It is constructed from facing brickwork with a steep pitched roof with the garden area sited to the side of it. The road and residents parking areas essentially wrap around the host property and thus views of No 18 and its garden are afforded from the public realm.

The proposed development would project some 5.7m from the side wall of the host property with a flat roof design. The extension in terms of its footprint and projection would be disproportionately and uncharacteristically large unduly dominating the modest form and scale of the host property.

The garden of the host property is visible from the public realm and the proposal on account of its overall size and elongated form would unacceptably draw the eye appearing as an unduly obtrusive and incongruous presence.

As such, the proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area contrary to [name] 69 and 72 which, amongst other things, seek a high standard of design including in respect of size and proposals to relate to the domestic scale of dwellings and the character and appearance of the street.

For the reasons set out above the appeal does not succeed.