Appeal 6006645

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address], with particular regard to outlook

No. [site address] is a single storey hairdressing salon in a residential area. it has a simple pitched roof with the gable ends forming the front and rear elevations, and its side and rear elevations lie very close to the property boundaries. The part two storey and part single storey dwelling at No. [address] lies to the south, with its driveway running alongside the shared boundary. The single storey part projects towards No. 42A and includes a reception room and kitchen. Windows in this elevation are 3.8m and 5.5m from the boundary. Its garden wraps around the rear of the appeal site, including an outbuilding sited immediately to its rear.

The appeal proposal is for a first floor extension above the salon to create a 2 bedroom flat. It would occupy the entire building footprint plus a small northern extension to accommodate the stairs. The same pitched roof form would be retained but with a projecting side gable with landing window to the northern elevation, and solar panels on the southern slope. Rear windows would be obscure glazed, with French doors and a balcony to the front elevation.

A previous appeal for a different form of the appeal proposal was dismissed in January 20191, due to the harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No. 42. I have had regard to that Inspector’s reasoning where appropriate, although it has not been determinative due to that proposal’s different form and scale, and my own judgement following my site visit to both properties. 1 APP/C4235/W/18/3211695

Policy H-1 of the [name] (‘the CS’) requires a high quality design and build standard for new residential development, and that a good standard of amenity should be maintained for the occupants of existing housing. Policy SIE-1 similarly identifies that positive consideration will be given to development that is designed to the highest contemporary standard, and that specific account should be had of matters to include the maintenance of satisfactory levels of amenity for neighbouring residents. The Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings Supplementary Planning Document (‘the SPD’) paragraph 6.4 identifies that upwards extensions which cause an unacceptable loss of outlook to neighbouring properties will be refused.

From the close range view out of the side kitchen window of No. 42, the additional extent of massing of the appeal property would noticeably restrict skywards views. From the middle of the room this would be less in extent due to the existing fence and roof, and there are also other front and rear windows in this room, such that I find the overall impression would not be overwhelmingly oppressive. However, although views gained from within the reception room would be similar, the lack of windows in other elevations of that room would heighten the impact of the poor outlook.

The SPD does identify that protection will not normally be given where windows have been added to the dwelling under permitted development rights, and the status of these side windows is accordingly in some dispute between the parties. No definitive date of construction is before me. Nonetheless, the SPD’s use of the word ‘normally’ is not a definitive preclusion. Its standard of a 12m separation distance between side facing habitable room windows and a blank elevation is an indication that closer relationships are normally harmful, and the distance here would be less than half of that. The windows appear to have been present for many years, and there are no other windows in the reception room. On this basis, I find it inappropriate to completely disregard them from my assessment, and this was also the previous Inspector’s approach.

I therefore find that the proposal would be harmful to the internal outlook from No. 42, due to the visual dominance of the appeal proposal and its overbearing relationship alongside the boundary.

The No. 42 garden is relatively large, such that the additional height and massing of the proposed extension would not be impactful from across its whole extent. Nonetheless, the significant change from the existing openness of the vista across No. 42A at present would be perceivable across a large part of it, with the gable end up to a height of 7.6m creating a sense of enclosure at closer range. Moreover, the part of the garden in closest proximity is evidently well-used and mature, including seating and patio areas. I find the scale and massing would cause an unduly prominent and overbearing impact upon the peaceful enjoyment of this garden area.

Overall and in combination from the internal and external impacts, the proposal would therefore significantly harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address] with regard to outlook. As such it would conflict with the [name]-1 and SIE-1 as outlined above.

The proposal must be assessed on its own merits, and it therefore gains no support from the suggestion that previous design iterations were more harmful.

I give negligible weight to the argument that the dwelling is necessary to secure the viability and presence of the business use, due to a lack of any substantive evidence to demonstrate this need or how the two uses would be directly linked. Moreover, the same argument was made for the previous proposal, but a salon business is still present on the site 8 years later.

The Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. As such, Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework requires granting permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places, and providing affordable homes.

The proposal would be in a sustainable location, and would make an effective use of land, both aspects supported by the Framework. The Framework also seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes, and so supports the provision of an additional open market dwelling. The benefits associated with the construction and occupation of a single additional dwelling would be limited, such that I give this moderate weight.

However, the proposal’s harmful impact on the occupants of No. [address] indicates that it would not be well-designed, and this therefore also limits the paragraph 125 support for opportunities to use the airspace above existing commercial premises for new homes. It would also conflict with the Framework paragraph 135 whereby decisions should ensure that developments create places that have a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

Taking the policies of the Framework as a whole, I find that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in this case. Accordingly, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as a material consideration outlined at paragraph 11 of the Framework. I have already identified that there would be a development plan conflict with [name]-1 and SIE-1.

The development would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole, and with the Framework. With no other material considerations indicating otherwise, for the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.