Appeal 6004588

The appeal is dismissed.

This appeal is subject to a costs decision which is the subject of a separate decision notice.

The neighbouring property at number [address] has presented several matters that relate to a potential dispute over the boundary between the two properties and the manner in which these are shown on the proposed plans. [name] note these concerns and whilst I saw on my site visit the proximity to the boundary, it is not within my gift to make judgement upon issues of a civil matter such as these and I would expect any such dispute to be addressed outside of this decision. As such I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of neighbours.

The appeal property is a detached house located within a modest, tree lined cul de sac of several similarly designed houses, many of which contain long, low catslide type roofs, stylised chimneys and a mix of render, stone and brick materials.

The appeal property itself is a good example of architecture or the houses on the street whereby its extended roof covers a double height living room space and a balcony faces the front at first floor level. To the rear there is nearing completion a single storey flat roof extension that would contain a kitchen/dining area. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6004588

The scheme before me seeks permission for two elements. To the front the proposal would extend the ground floor of the property to create a store and office with utility space behind. This would be housed beneath a lean too roof and would extend the property to be in line with the existing ground floor front elevation serving the living room. It would also remove the existing first floor balcony in this location. Above the extended hallway and front door would rise a partial gable fronted dormer upward extension that would house a fourth bedroom.

To the rear the proposal seeks permission for a first floor bedroom extension over the existing ground floor kitchen. This extension would terminate in a rear facing gable and would bring the rear elevation to around the same rear building line of that of the neighbour at number [address]. This rear gable end would be located close to the neighbour’s boundary and I understand that a previously proposed Juliet style balcony has been substituted for an area of glazing with opening casements.

To the north of the appeal site is another suburban street, [address]. Occupying a corner plot here is number [address] which is a two storey detached house that has previously been extended to the rear with a flat roof extension. This property is sited on a noticeably lower plot than that of the appeal site due to the general lay of the land here. There are several windows and patio doors opening onto what is a modest rear garden with a side terrace running along the initial length of [address].

When the appeal property is viewed from number 65, particularly from the rear kitchen/dining room window, the prominence of the end gable of the house is obvious. This feature stands on a higher level but is fairly narrow, as such its impact is relatively limited although it does create a dominance over the central parts of the house. Also obvious from this point of view is the first floor balcony whose railings can clearly be seen rising above the garden fence of number 65 and upon which an occupant of the appeal property could stand or sit were they to feel so inclined.

The proposed extension would remove this balcony and extend the ground floor level towards the front of the appeal property. This would remove any chance of direct overlooking and the extension would be accommodated beneath a pitched lean too roof which would extend from around the cill level of the first floor front bedroom windows. Apart from the initial rise in height to the top of the roof slope, the effect of this ground floor extension would be minimal when viewed from number 65 and would offer a considerable enhancement with regards privacy.

The first floor element would be set in from the gable end of the appeal property by almost 4 metres. It would then extend upwards from just shy of the extended front of the property to form a large dormer type extension that would terminate in a gable roof form. This would raise the structure in line with the existing eaves of the property before a pitch roof would slope away to a height slightly lower than the existing ridge of the main house. This single extension is larger than those individual extensions of the previously proposed extension whereby two smaller dormer windows were proposed that were more modest and set further in from the front elevation. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6004588

When seen from the rear garden and the rear kitchen of number 65 this extension would infill a noticeable area of openness and would obscure parts of the sky. It would undoubtably result in more mass of development here that would be on the verge of being over dominant in any normal scenario even though it almost meets the guidance within the Council’s guidance on house extensions in having a around a 12m distance between the extension and the neighbouring property. With the predominant vista being upwards towards the appeal site however, due to the lay of the land, the effect is amplified and would appear much more harmful from the aspect from number 65.

This is a finely balanced judgement and although I consider some design modifications would likely be able to overcome these issues, it is not within my gift to determine such potential changes here. As such, based on the scheme before me, I must conclude that the effect upon the living conditions of those living at [address] and that the loss of openness and dominance of the proposed extension would make this development, on balance, unacceptable.

Coming to the extension to the rear, this would itself have a slight effect upon residents at number [address] but to a much more limited amount due to the distance involved. As such I find no harm with regards this extension in this respect. The proposal would however include a bedroom window upon its gable which would be much further forward than the existing window is currently located. As a result, it would bring the potential for overlooking of the neighbour’s garden at number [address] into focus.

[name] note that the Council have not raised issue with this since the Juliet type balcony was removed from the revised scheme, nevertheless it would still introduce a first floor window here very close to the common boundary between the two properties and the neighbour has raised specific concerns about this. In assessing this important matter, I do not consider there would be much scope for overlooking into the neighbour’s conservatory, however, there would be opportunity to overlook into the garden area from an oblique angle very close to the boundary from this proposed window and this would introduce a level of overlooking that does not currently exist.

Once again, this is a finely balanced issue and although it would not be possible for a person occupying the bedroom to sit on a balcony of sorts, the proposed window here would still offer a clear view of the neighbour’s private garden to the detriment of their living conditions.

[name] note the Appellant’s suggestion of a split decision in this case, I am unable to offer this due to this potentially harmful introduction. And, whilst I consider a modest design change or perhaps attached external screen could be capable of mitigating such an impact, I am unable to condition such a matter in this regard.

Moreover, I saw on my site visit that the boundary fence was set in from the edge of the existing rear extension which appeared to show a boundary that was not immediately clear. As such I would not be confident in allowing this rear element, even with conditions, subject to the uncertainty around the boundary issue as outlined above. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: 6004588

Therefore, whilst I consider there would be ways to mitigate the harms that I have found with this scheme, ultimately the proposal before me would still cause such harm so as to bring the scheme into conflict with policies WD5 and WD23 of the Wirral Local Plan1 as well as guidance contained within SPG11, all of which reflect the Framework in its aims to achieve good design that does not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbours.

For the reasons given above, whilst taking into account all other matters raised, I must dismiss this appeal.