Appeal 6004524

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of occupiers of 29 and [address] (No 29 and No 31), with regard to outlook.

The appeal site comprises a 2-storey house, arranged in a roughly L-shaped plan and set within a large garden plot. The site’s side boundaries adjoin the rear gardens to houses which front onto [address], including No 29 and No 31.

The dwellings at No 29 and No 31 contain rear windows at ground and upper floor levels which are well separated from the boundary shared with the site. Their gardens are at a lower ground level to the appeal site. Despite the presence of outbuildings of varying sizes and the modest, solid boundary fences, these neighbouring gardens have a sense of spaciousness which is partly due to the distances of separation between the bulk of neighbouring dwellings. This spacious quality contributes to the enjoyment of these gardens.

A flat-roofed, ground floor projection (indicated as a gym and a garage in the plans) is sited along part of the boundary shared with No 31 and a short section of No 29. Despite the presence of vegetation and trees along this boundary, this appears as a prominent feature from No 31’s garden due to its height and the fact it extends across part of the shared boundary. It is a less imposing feature from the garden at No 29, partly due to its sloping roof and the more limited extent of the side wall visible from that location. Above ground-floor, the appeal building’s massing steps well away from these shared boundaries. Its bulk is further mitigated by the use of sloping roof pitches.

The proposal comprises several extensions and alterations to different parts of the appeal building. The Council’s concern relates only to the first floor extension at the building’s southern and eastern elevations. These disputed elements would form a bathroom and a walk-in closet serving the room labelled ‘Bedroom-1’.

The proposed first floor extension forming the walk-in closet would extend up to the outer side wall of the existing ground floor addition adjoining the boundary with No 31. Although its hipped roof would step down from the height of the existing ridge, it would nonetheless result in a broad expanse of tall and imposing wall very close to the shared boundary. The use of matching materials, the presence of existing vegetation and the splay of the proposed side wall compared to the position of the boundary would not mitigate its obtrusive, bulky appearance. This element would form an unduly dominant and unneighbourly feature when viewed from the garden space at No 29 and No 31, eroding the existing sense of spaciousness and resulting in a harmful enclosure of those spaces.

Whilst the appellant suggests that soft landscaping could mitigate this impact, no details of such a scheme are before me. In any event, I am not convinced that a scheme could be formulated which would effectively soften a proposal of this scale and height whilst maintaining the character and appearance of the area. Moreover, soft landscaping cannot be relied upon in perpetuity to provide the same extent of screening. Similarly, the clearing of existing vegetation elsewhere on the shared boundary would not address the visual impact resulting from the proposed side wall, which would be of a fundamentally different nature to those landscaping features.

The proposed projection housing the bathroom would be of a slightly smaller scale to the walk-in closet extension. Together with its lower overall ridge height, its position away from the shared boundaries with both No 29 and No 31 would sufficiently break up the massing and perceived height as seen at those sites. Therefore, this element would not harm the outlook from those adjoining rear gardens. However, this would not justify the harm that would result from the other disputed element of this proposal.

Concluding on this, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No 29 and No 31, with regard to outlook. This would conflict with relevant provisions of Policies KP2 and CP4 of the Council’s Core Strategy (2007) and Policies DM1 and DM3 of the Council’s Development Management Document (2015). Amongst other things, those policies seek to protect the amenity of immediate neighbours and the surrounding area, including outlook and visual enclosure.

For the reasons given and having regard to the conflict with the development plan, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.