Appeal 6006477

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.

The above-mentioned legislation grants planning permission for the enlargement of a dwelling subject to limitations and conditions. I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s conclusions on the compliance of the scheme with the relevant permitted development provisions and some prior approval matters. With this and the above in mind, I have focussed on the effect of the scheme on the amenity (living conditions of occupiers) of Numbers 37 and 41 (No 37 and 41) [address] with particular regard to outlook and light. This is the main issue of the appeal.

The appeal building is a mid-terraced dwelling, the remainders within which are uniform in both their siting and overall form. The rear elevations are consistent with modest single storey rear extensions sitting primarily in line with each other. The appeal proposal would sit directly against both the boundary of No 37 and 41, spanning the width of the appeal property.

The appeal proposal, by virtue of its height and length along with its positioning against the shared boundary of No 37 and 41 would result in an elongated blank elevation viewed from both within the buildings and the gardens. Whilst the length would be modest in some suburban contexts, the close nature of the terraced dwellings means its length and height would be felt more acutely. Consequently, the extension would result in an enclosing feel for both sets of occupiers unacceptably harming their outlook from both their dwellings and gardens. As the rear elevations face southwards, there would be some loss of light to both No 37 and 41 at certain points of the day. However, this would be relatively unchanged from the existing situation. As such it wouldn’t be unacceptably harmful to the occupiers.

The proposal would therefore conflict with [name].4(12) of Class A, Part 1 of the aforementioned order which relates to the impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises. The appellant has drawn my attention to development plan policies and additional guidance that seeks to ensure proposals are of a high-quality design and amenity standards. Whilst these are a material consideration for permitted development schemes, they are not decisive. Albeit, for the above reasons, the appeal proposal would not sit squarely with their aims.

The need for increased space requirements for the incumbent family is understood but not something that can be given much weight in the circumstances of a submission within the prior approval/permitted development regime which is more concerned with addressing specific criteria for assessment. The impact of development in terms of character and appearance is not determinative in this type of appeal either.

For the reasons given, the scheme would not be granted prior approval as it would be assessed under the above-mentioned class of the legislation. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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