Appeal 6004914

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: a) the character and appearance of the area; and, b) the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to overbearing and outlook.

The appeal dwelling is a two-storey, end-terrace dwelling of brick and tile construction. The dwelling is located within a rectangular shaped plot and has a large detached outbuilding located within the rear garden. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character.

The appeal site is located on a bend in Parksway. No.17 Parksway (No.17) is not attached to the appeal dwelling and is positioned at an angle. The orientation means that its rear elevation is angled towards the rear garden of the appeal site. No.17 has a triangular shaped plot and has single storey projections to both the side and rear. Due to the angle of the property and shape of the plot, the rear and side additions are positioned close to the shared boundary. No.17 has limited remaining private amenity space to the rear. No.17 is also sited at a slightly lower level due to a change in land levels.

The extension would fill the gap between the side elevation and the site boundary with No.17. The extension would be visible from the street. However, it would be set back from the front façade, while its eaves and ridge height would be set well below those of the existing dwelling. The modest scale and positioning of the extension would mean that, when viewed from Parksway, it would appear as a subservient addition to the dwelling.

The degree of projection to the rear would be significant, although from the street this would not be overly apparent. The extension would, in part, be in lieu of the existing detached outbuilding, which would be removed. It would also be sited in a location where there is a high level of built form along the boundary arising from the single storey additions to the side and rear of No.17. Therefore, the extension would visually consolidate development along the boundary rather than appearing as an incongruous addition in its context. As such, notwithstanding its depth, the extension, would not appear prominent or out of context with its surroundings.

For the above reasons, the development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, the development complies with Policy DC6 of the Warrington Local Plan 2023 (the LP). This seeks to deliver development which is of good design that makes a positive contribution to local character.

The shared boundary with No.[address] board fence. To the rear of the existing outbuilding the fence is set just below the height of the eaves. However, the remaining fence along the boundary has a lower height.

I acknowledge that the orientation of No.17 means that the proposed extension would breach the 45-degree standard from the rear opening of the conservatory. The existing outbuilding also breaches this standard. The extension would have a greater eaves height and a pitched roof meaning it would be of greater mass than the existing outbuilding when viewed from the conservatory. However, the additional projection beyond the existing outbuilding would be minimal. Therefore, the overall change in respect of outlook from the rear conservatory opening would not be significant.

The proposed extension would occupy the majority of the boundary length with No.17. The overall depth of the extension on the boundary would be significant. The extension would have an eaves height which is greater than the existing outbuilding, while its pitched roof design would add further mass on the boundary. I note that the roof would slope away from the boundary. Nonetheless, this would amount to additional mass close to the shared boundary which would be visible from the garden space of No.17.

Due to the modest height of much of the boundary fence, the extension would be perceived as projecting significantly above the boundary line. This would result in a dominant built form which would be visually prominent from the limited private garden space of No.17. The scale of the extension would result in an oppressive and overbearing presence on the boundary. The sense of overbearing would be exacerbated by the change in land levels between the two properties.

Overall, while I do not consider the effect on outlook to be harmful, the scale, height and massing of the extension along the boundary would nevertheless result in a significantly overbearing impact.

For the above reasons, the development would have a significant harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.17 with particular regard to overbearing impacts. Therefore, the development conflicts with Policy ENV8 of the LP. This seeks to protect existing occupiers and operators in the surrounding area from new development and its potential impacts.

My attention has been drawn to a householder prior approval which the appellant considers to be a fallback1. Full details of that permission have not been provided and, therefore, I cannot draw any definitive comparisons. Nonetheless, I note that the Council observe in their [name] that “the 6m extension stops short of the nearest corner of the conservatory and with the garage removed, the impact would be considerably lower than what is proposed here with just under 14m of featureless blank wall compared to the prior approval 9.7m with a flat roof as proposed”. Based on this assessment it would appear that the prior approval would not result in the same extent of development along the boundary with No.17. As such the overbearing effects are unlikely to be at the same level.

The appellant has suggested that a condition could be imposed which limits the extent of the rearward projection to that of the prior approval scheme. However, plans which show this are not before me. In any event, that is not the scheme which was considered by the Council or third parties. Therefore, such a condition would fail the tests of reasonableness and enforceability.

I acknowledge that the development would facilitate multi-generational living. While this could be a benefit of the proposals, it would largely be a private one. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that the appeal scheme is the only manner in which to deliver such accommodation. Therefore, I can only attach limited weight to this and such benefits would not be so great as to outweigh the permanent harm that would arise to the living conditions of existing and future occupiers of No.17.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.