Appeal 6004550

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of the residents of 44 and [address] with regard to light and outlook.

The proposal would result in a two storey rear extension that would extend across almost the full width of this terraced property. The dwelling has an enclosed rear yard that is accessed from the back lane. The council are of the view that the proposal would not result in harm to the character or appearance of the North Park Road Conservation Area. Given its size; and position to the rear of these terraced properties, I agree with this assessment.

The extension would extend three metres and whilst this is a generally accepted arrangement with regard to ground floor rear additions, the proposal would be two storeys high. It would take up much of the rear yard and would be close to the boundaries of both neighbouring yards; and also rear facing windows. The council’s Householder Supplementary Planning Document 2012 (SPD) advises that two storey rear extensions should not normally project beyond a 45 degree line taken from the edge of the nearest habitable windows of the adjacent houses.

The neighbouring property at number 48 has large ground and first floor windows close to the boundary and these appear to serve habitable rooms. Development of two storey height close to the boundary would conflict with the SPD guidance with regard to the 45 degree line. The extension would be overbearing when in the neighbouring yard and would result in a significantly reduced outlook from the nearest windows. It would also restrict sunlight for a short period during each morning. The extension would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the residents of [address], particularly with regard to outlook. Appeal Decision: 6004550

The impact on [address] would differ as it lies to the south of the proposed extension and as a result, there would be no additional shading. The nearest windows are small and do not appear to serve habitable rooms. Although measurements have not been provided, it seems likely that the larger windows would not conflict with the 45 degree guidance. Number [address] so there is little prospect of development to its immediate south. The extension would be dominant when in the rear yard but the impact on the living conditions of the residents would be more limited.

As the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the residents of [address], it would conflict with the amenity requirements of policy DS5(F) of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2017. It would also be at odds with the amenity requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework.

I have had regard to the personal circumstances referenced. The evidence submitted is not clear whether the appellant or family members have protected characteristics with regard to the Equality Act 2010. Nevertheless, I have assumed this to be the case given the needs expressed with regard to accessible living accommodation, particularly the need for an accessible bathroom. The proposal gains support from policy DS5(C) which seeks to ensure buildings provide easy access for all, including those with physical disabilities. However, it appears likely that these requirements could be achieved without the scale of harm that results to the residents of [address]. I am not satisfied that this is the most appropriate approach to meeting the appellant’s needs having regard to all constraints.

Neighbouring residents have not objected to the proposal but having taken all matters into account, I am not persuaded that the benefits of the extension would outweigh my concerns. I therefore dismiss the appeal.