Appeal 6005169

The appeal is dismissed.

The evidence before me notes that the appeal is part retrospective. During my site visit, I noted that the side extension, which is the main focus of this appeal, was substantially complete. However, the conversion of the ground floor did not appear to have yet taken place. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling No.[address] with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal site comprises a building situated on [address], positioned at the junction with [address]. This area accommodates a mix of commercial uses alongside a significant number of residential properties. No. [address] proximity to the appeal site. It is a semi‐detached dwelling and, of particular relevance to this appeal, features a side-facing window, a conservatory, and a rear garden area.

The extension subject to this appeal runs along the shared boundary with No. 140 at a two‐storey height and at an exceptionally close distance from it. When experienced from the side-facing window, the conservatory, and the rear garden of No. 140, the combined height, proximity, and substantial length of the extension result in a pronounced sense of enclosure. In turn, this enclosure materially diminishes the outlook available to the occupants of No. [address] from these three key positions.

In reaching this conclusion, I have also taken account of the fact that the impact is not confined to a single room or viewpoint. The development is perceptible from multiple positions within the neighbouring property and its garden, thereby amplifying its overall effect upon [address]. For these reasons, the development the subject of this appeal causes a significant and unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No. [address], with specific regard to outlook.

The impact on outlook arising from the physical presence of a two‐storey structure extending for a considerable length along the shared boundary at very close proximity would not be overcome by the blocking up of any window to remove any view towards No. 140. That is a matter which relates to privacy, not outlook. The sense of enclosure experienced from No. 140 is a consequence of the scale and siting of the extension itself, rather than the presence of any window.

It has been suggested that boundary planting could mitigate the effects of the development. However, given the height that such planting would need to achieve in order to screen a two‐storey elevation, I do not consider that this represents a realistic or effective solution. The time required for planting to reach an adequate height would be substantial, and even then, its effectiveness would be limited, particularly during the winter months when foliage is reduced.

For these reasons, I am not persuaded that either the blocking of windows or the introduction of boundary planting would overcome the harm caused by the development.

It is asserted that the conservatory at No. 140 is not a primary habitable room and therefore should attract limited planning weight. I do not agree with that position. Whilst limited in size, the conservatory functions as a habitable space in which its occupants are entitled to enjoy a comfortable and relaxing environment. The sense of enclosure created by the development would materially diminish this experience, and the impact on this room cannot be discounted. Furthermore, this suggestion fails to recognise the effect of the development upon the garden of No. 140 in particular.

It is further argued that the impact on outlook is limited in that it is one single issue, and that the refusal of planning permission is therefore disproportionate. It follows that the appellant also contends that removing the development would result in significant financial cost, generate construction waste, and adversely affect the viability of the convenience store. The appellant chose to undertake this development without first securing planning permission, and did so entirely at their own risk. It is the responsibility of any developer to ensure that the necessary consents are in place prior to construction.

While the appellant may consider the refusal to be disproportionate, it would equally be disproportionate to allow the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers to be unacceptably harmed in such a significant manner, by a development erected without permission. The consequences arising from the appellant’s decision not to apply for planning permission cannot be treated as a mitigating factor in favour of retaining the development.

It is stated that the extension is required to meet the accommodation needs of a family of four. However, the submitted plans indicate that the extension is intended to function as retail storage. On this basis, I find no clear or credible link between the stated justification and the actual proposed use of the space. I therefore question how the development would meet the accommodation needs of a family of four when its intended purpose, as shown on the plans, is for retail storage rather than residential living space.

Accordingly, the proposal fails to comply with Policy HC3 of the Sefton Local Plan, which seeks to ensure that non‐residential development does not result in an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

For the reasons given above and taking all relevant material considerations into account, the appeal should be dismissed.