Appeal 6005335

The appeal is dismissed.

The first main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings. The second is the effect of the proposed development on the residential amenities of neighbours (whether unacceptable harm would be caused by overbearing appearance or loss of light).

The appeal site is located in the northern part of March, on the main route that connects the town to Wisbech. [address] is a busy road and bus route. The surroundings are mixed in character; mainly residential, but with some commercial premises along the main road, including at ‘The Men of March’, a public house that is located a short way to the south-east of the appeal site.

The houses along [address] are typically two-storey detached or semi-detached houses, set back from the roadside on good-sized plots, often with parking spaces on their front gardens. Number 81 is such a detached house, between two semi-detached pairs, with a parking area at the front of the plot and a long back garden. It is separated from its neighbours on each side by pedestrian paths on the appeal site or the adjoining site. It is constructed of brickwork under a hipped slate roof, with a single-storey flat-roofed extension at the rear.

It is now proposed to construct a first-floor extension at the rear of the main part of the house, to be built over the existing single-storey element.

The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ emphasises the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. It is aimed at achieving Appeal Decision: 6005335 good design standards generally, by adding to the overall quality of the area and being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history, although it is also recognised that appropriate change may include increased densities. The achievement of good design includes protecting existing residential amenities and providing good standards of accommodation in new development.

Policies in the Development Plan also share these basic principles. Notably, in relation to this appeal, Policy LP16 of the ‘Fenland Local Plan’ (which was adopted in May 2014) focusses on “Delivering and [name]”. Among other things, it includes a specific requirement to protect neighbours’ residential amenities.

The Council’s ‘Supplementary Planning Document entitled ‘Delivering and [name] in Fenland’ (which was adopted in July 2014) is also relevant, but it does not have the force of the statutory Development Plan.

The proposed rear extension at first floor level would be built close to the side boundaries of the plot, retaining a pedestrian path alongside the south-eastern boundary with number 79. The finished extension would be two storeys in height overall, with a new gable on the rear elevation. Thus, it would have long and high side elevations on each flank. Facing number 79, the new first floor would include a side window (serving a bedroom) but the side wall facing number 83 would be a blank brick wall.

The proposed design of the extension would be in keeping with the host building and its surrounding, making use of appropriate materials. Even so, the new side wall facing number 83 would be especially dominant in relation to the neighbour, as a result of the existing layout of the properties, while the orientation of the buildings would cause the new extension to reduce the light available to the rear of the adjoining house to its north-west.

In consequence, the new first floor extension would harm the residential amenities of neighbours, by reason of its overbearing appearance and the loss of light. Evidently, the appeal site lies within an established urban area, which is “sustainable” in planning terms, and the proposed development would make a useful addition to the existing house. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the harm that would be done to the neighbours’ residential amenities outweighs the benefits of the project. In reaching that conclusion, I have been conscious of the fact that other properties in the vicinity have obviously been altered and extended over the years (including number [address], which is visible from the appeal site), but I must consider this appeal proposal on its own merits.

Hence, I am persuaded that the scheme before me would conflict with both national and local planning policies (including the Development Plan) and that it ought not to be allowed. [name] have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision.