Appeal 6005342

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the development is taken from the Council’s Decision Notice as the description reflects the individual elements requiring consent. I shall determine the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of the neighbouring property at No.55 with particular regard to outlook and access to light.

The appeal site is located towards the end of a cul-de-sac which terminates with a hammerhead turning area, with the appeal site fronting the side of the turning area. The placement of the dwellings to the side of the turning area means that No.55 is placed forward of the appeal dwelling so that the rear façade of the neighbouring dwelling at No.55 is at the same line as the front façade of the appeal dwelling. The appeal dwelling currently has a ground floor side extension which projects further than the two storey component of the main dwelling and is setback approximately 1 metre from the boundary with No.55 and has a lean-to roof which seeks to minimise the bulk of the single storey side projection.

Beginning with outlook, as shown in the [name] of Case; No.55 has habitable room windows at ground and first floor level closest to the proposal. Whilst the garden of No.55 is relatively wide and deep, the two storey wall of the appeal site would project for approximately half the depth of the rear garden of No.55. This is a substantial length where the proposal would involve a two storey blank façade which would have a domineering presence upon the rear garden of No.55. Whilst the appeal dwelling already has a single storey wall in the same position as the two storey proposal, the increased height of the wall as a result of Appeal Decision: 6005342 the proposed extension would accentuate the height and poor appearance of the structure in relation to the neighbouring garden. Whilst the proposal contains a pitched roof which somewhat reduces the impact, the increased height would still cause significant detriment as a result of loss of outlook and sense of enclosure to the rear garden of the neighbouring dwelling as well as limiting the outlook from habitable room windows to the rear façade.

I appreciate comments from the [name] of Case (SoC) with regards to No.59 to the opposite side of the appeal site that has a two storey rear extension. [name] have not been presented details of the approval of this extension it does appear shorter in depth than the proposal at the appeal site as well as being further setback with the extension being angled away increasing in setback as a result of the shape of the plot. As such, I do not consider that the extension at No.59 represents similar conditions to that of the appeal site.

Consequently, whilst I appreciate that the extension is setback one metre the combination of height, depth and massing so close to the boundary would not be mitigated by the proposed setback and would be detrimental to the living conditions of the neighbouring resident of No.55.

Turning to overshadowing, the rear garden of the property faces towards the east. The existing two storey elevation and single storey component of the extension would already cause some degree of overshadowing of the garden. Due to the direction of the sun and building placement, it would appear that the rear façade would gain a small proportion of sunlight in the morning but would be largely overshadowed in the afternoon. The increase in proximity of the two storey element close to the boundary would reduce the already poor amount of light received to the rear of No.55 as a result of the positioning of the buildings in relation to each other.

In conclusion of this matter, given the unusual positioning of the appeal dwelling and the neighbouring dwelling at No.55, the proposal would cause adverse detriment to the living conditions of the neighbouring property from overshadowing and a perceived sense of enclosure. The proposal would therefore conflict with [name] DM1 and P3; and the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document1 Policy JP-P1, policies of which set a number of design principles, such as seeking that development provide a high level of amenity to surrounding occupiers.

I note comments in the [name] that there are no objections from the neighbouring property at No.55. Whilst acceptance from a neighbour is not necessarily material given that a proposal is assessed on the ability to affect current and future occupiers. Despite this, the appeal documents do contain a submission from the neighbour at No.55 who has concerns about the development.

I acknowledge and appreciate the comments from the Appellant in their SoC regarding their personal needs, their specific situation and justifications for the proposed extension which is for an additional space to care for an elderly relative which I have treated as a material consideration to this proposal. Whilst there is not much detail regarding the justification for the extension in relation to these specific needs, having reviewed these personal circumstances, I feel that there may be 1 [name], Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan. Appeal Decision: 6005342 other ways of accommodating the Appellant’s needs which may be more compliant with the policies of the development plan. As such the personal circumstances of the Appellant in this case do not indicate that the decision should not be made in accordance with the policies of the development plan.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.