Appeal 6006646

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this case are: i) the effect of the proposed development on the character of the rear garden environment and wider streetscene; and ii) its effect on the amenity of the adjacent occupiers at Nos.49 and [address].

The appeal site is a semi-detached house in a predominately residential area of similar house types, with the [name] opposite. The house and its attached neighbour have hipped roofs with 2-storey forward projecting bays under individual gable roofs. Each side of the bays there are porches which line up with the front elevations of the bays, in the case of the appeal dwelling, under a flat roof. There is a garage on the un-attached side, proposed to be converted into living accommodation. I noted at my site visit that the next-door house on the unattached side is on ground 0.5m or so lower than the level of the appeal property. The appeal proposal includes a small forward projecting central porch which is not controversial, and nor is the conversion of the garage.

The appellant’s appeal statement indicates that the rear extension has been designed in accordance with permitted development principles. The basis for this statement has not been explained. The proposal involves extending across the full width of the plot, effectively producing a 3-storey house at the rear. The single storey part of the proposal adds 3m depth to the existing house, taking account of the existing ground floor extension and the existing conservatory, but the new build would extend back 6m from the original rear wall, and would extend 6m along the boundary with No.49 from the back wall of that house. Appeal Decision 60066046

Whilst the front elevation, filling the width of the plot, maintains a reasonable relationship with its attached neighbour and the street scene, the side and rear extensions are of such bulk and massing, lacking subservience to the existing house, that they have an unsatisfactory, overbearing and incongruous effect to the rear garden environment of the host dwelling and its neighbours.

Turning to the amenity of the neighbours, apart from the general scale of the rear extensions, which would be overbearing and intrusive, as already noted the 6m extension from the back of the hoist dwelling would run 6m back from the rear wall of No.49. This would bring such enclosure to the area of garden immediately at the back of this house that the living conditions of the occupiers would be substantially harmed. The effect on No.53 would be more limited since the rear of the extensions on the boundary between this property and the host dwelling would more or less be in alignment. Whilst not mentioned in the council’s refusal notice, I have taken account of the representation from that property. Bearing in mind the lower ground level at No.53, as mentioned in paragraph 4 above, and that effectively the proposal would be of 3-storeys, the effect would be intrusive and overbearing. In respect of both neighbours, the proposal would lead to considerable harm to the amenity of their gardens.

The appellant submitted a late representation on the basis that the appeal was based on information available at that time, but subsequently new information had become available. I have taken into account this representation. For the most part I have deal above with the material considerations raised that lead to my decision. A new matter that I have not dealt with concerns the encouragement of “Security by Design” that is set out in national planning policy. I am told that a burglary occurred at the property on 30 November 2025, where the narrow 600mm gap between No. 51 and No. 53 was used as a point of access. The appellant considers that closing this redundant and vulnerable gap is a functional necessity that improves the safety of the household without impacting the street scene.

I fully appreciate the outrage and anxiety that such an event brings, but the appeal scheme is not the only way to guard against such future events. I do not treat this lightly, but the matters leading to my decision are overriding.

For the reasons that I have given, the appeal will be dismissed.