Appeal 6006165

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

Prior approval has been granted for a rear extension. The evidence suggests that this is what was partially built at the time of my site visit. The roof, floor, doors and windows have not been added, but there is nothing to suggest they will not. Nor is there anything, legislative or otherwise, to confirm that if it were to be completed, the extant prior approval would cease to be relevant to it. With this in mind, it would be the case that it could come forwards regardless of the outcome of this appeal. Thus, the appellant is seeking planning permission for the other aspects of the scheme as separate entities. I have dealt with the appeal accordingly.

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

The appeal property is adjoined to Number [address] (No.17) and positioned closely to Number 21 (No.21). Dwellings around the appeal site benefit from modest rear gardens separated by relatively low boundary treatments. To the rear, the properties have a close relationship with clear views of the back of the dwelling and garden of each neighbour from the appeal site and vice versa.

The proposal would introduce an extension to the side of the property that would be positioned on the boundary between the appeal site and No.21. It would be part two storey, part single storey and stretch across a large proportion of the boundary of the rear garden. It would extend further out than the rear extension of No.21 and be considerably higher than the existing boundary fencing. The looming feel of the height, proximity and run of the extension would create a boxing in. This would be overbearing to users of the neighbouring garden, detrimentally affecting their outlook.

The position of the proposed extensions would be set away from the boundary of No.17. Even though the alterations would be clearly noticeable from the neighbouring garden, they would not be an unusual type of development within a residential area. The extensions subject of this appeal would not therefore harm the outlook experienced for the occupiers of No.17. Nevertheless, given the harm that I have found to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.21, the proposal would not comply with the requirements of Policy CG4 of the Local Development Framework Bolton’s Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2011 (LP) which is concerned with protecting amenity amongst other things.

Properties on [address] are generally semi-detached, and many have been subject to side extensions of differing scales and appearances. Dwellings are set back in line with one another with spacious frontages. On the rear elevations, there are also a variety of alterations including extensions.

The proposal would introduce a side and rear extension that would be slightly stepped back from the existing dwelling at the front. The side extension would have a subordinate appearance from the street scene with a slimmer width and lower height. Many of the dwellings on [address] have been subject to alterations including side extensions The proposals that would be visible on the frontage and would reflect the evolved character and appearance of the area. The extension would be larger than some of the other built form, but it would only be clearly visible from the rear windows and gardens of some of the dwellings. Using similar materials to match the existing dwelling, it would therefore not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would therefore comply, in regard to this main issue, with Policy JP- P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document for Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan 2024 and Policy RA1 of the LP which are concerned with respecting character amongst other things.

The appeal process is impartial, and any advice from the Council would not influence my recommendation. The same can be said for revisions from a previously refused scheme, which would clearly not be sufficient to overcome the harms I have found for the reasons I have set out. Any compliance with the 45- degree line with regard to light issues would be welcomed but is not the only consideration when assessing the impact of a proposal on neighbours’ living conditions. I have found other harm as I have set out above.

A lack of harm relating to character and appearance would be neutral and thus incapable of weighing in favour of the appeal scheme. I have found that there would be harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.21 which would result in conflict with the development plan. Material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. For that reason, I recommend the appeal is dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.