Appeal 6006029

The appeal is dismissed

It is noted that the original description of the development on the application has changed as a result of the acceptance by the Council during the course of the application of an amended plan which omitted a first floor extension. The description of development in this appeal has been modified to reflect this amendment.

The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the residential amenity of the occupier of the neighbouring dwelling, [address] (no 185) by virtue of outlook.

The appeal property, No [site address] (No 187), is an end terraced property within a residential area, with a two storey off shot to its rear elevation which has been further extended by a single storey projection. Its neighbouring property, No 185, has the original single storey outrigger on its rear elevation. The proposed rear extension of approximately 7.6 metres in length would be adjacent to the common boundary between the two properties infilling the gap at No 187 and occupying the full length and width of the host dwelling as extended.

No 185 has a ground floor window on its rear elevation which is set close to the party wall and serves a kitchen. Despite its flat roof design, an extension of this length would result in a dominating and overbearing built form close to this window. I acknowledge that the proposed development would be typical of domestic extensions commonly found within residential areas and note that the surrounding area is characterised by similar extensions. However, each case must be assessed on its own merits and whilst a reasonable garden space would remain at No 185, the proposal would present a significant expanse of brick wall in close proximity to it with an increased sense of enclosure at this point.

The Council’s Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document Successful Places (adopted 2013) (SPD) requires that proposals should not create an overbearing relationship between buildings. This would be the case in this instance. Notwithstanding any permitted development allowances for larger/wrap around extensions, I find that the size and sense of enclosure of the appeal scheme is sufficient for me to find against the proposal.

I note that the rear of Nos 185 and 187 face north. In this respect I concur with the assessment of the Council that given this and the presence of the existing two storey rear off shot, any loss of light caused by the proposed extension would not be significant. Consequently, I do not believe that the proposal would result in an undue loss of light. Rather it is the mass of built form close to the boundary which would cause the harmful effect in this case.

I acknowledge that no objections to the proposal have been received. However this in itself does not indicate a lack of harm arising from the proposal. I note too that the Council does not raise any concerns with regard to the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area, nor are any highway issues raised. However, the absence of harm in these respects does not weigh in favour of the scheme.

In conclusion, I find that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 185 with regard to outlook, Accordingly the proposal would fail to comply with Policies CLP14 and CLP20 of the Chesterfield Borough Local Plan (adopted 2020) which amongst other things requires development to have an acceptable impact on the amenity of users and neighbours. It would also fail to comply with the Council’s SPD, details of which are given above and the National Planning Policy Framework which looks to create a high standard of amenity for existing and future occupiers.

Therefore, I dismiss the appeal.