Appeal 6006835

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant submitted a revised drawing, reducing the height of the proposed eaves from 2.2m to 2.0m, prior to determination of the planning application. The Council did not accept the amended drawing, on the basis that the amendments required to address the concerns it had identified would be so substantial as to amount to a different proposal. As the amended plan has not been subject to consultation, including with interested parties, the appeal has been determined on the basis of the details submitted with the planning application. To do otherwise would prejudice the Council and interested parties.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of occupants of No [address] (No 67) with regard to outlook and daylight/sunlight.

No [site address] (No 65) is a two-storey mid terraced dwelling with a flat roof dormer, two-storey projection and single-storey extension to the rear. The existing extension runs along the boundary with No [address] (No 63) and is broadly half the width of the garden, leaving a gap between the extension and the boundary with No 67.

There is a largely full width single-storey extension at No 67, a similar depth to that at No 65, the height of which is significantly above the shared boundary fence. However, there is a ground floor window in the principal rear elevation of No 67, and adjacent to the window a small courtyard is provided. The outlook and daylight/sunlight to this window will currently be affected by the adjacent two-storey projection to the side and the single-storey extension in front of it and the adjacent boundary fence. The outlook from the window currently includes a gap between the existing extensions at No 65 and 67, above fence level. This gap will contribute to the amount of daylight available at the window, which is understood to serve a bedroom.

The appeal proposal is for an extension that would extend significantly beyond the existing extension and would be full width of the garden. This is a significant length from the principal rear elevation. The eaves height of the proposed roof would be above the shared boundary fence with No 67, with the roof rising to a ridge height of approximately 3m as noted by the Council in the officer’s report.

The outlook from the bedroom window at No 67 is currently limited by the extension in front of it and it would be adversely affected by the appeal proposal which would be significantly higher than the shared boundary fence at ridge roof level. The proposal would extend for a significant distance along the adjoining boundary and looking from the window there would be no apparent gap between extensions at No 67 and No 65. This would result in an increased sense of enclosure, unacceptably effecting the outlook from the window.

The outlook from the side kitchen window at No 67 is primarily of the shared boundary fence and the two-storey projection of No 65 a short distance beyond. Views beyond the end of the two-storey projection at No 65 are limited by the adjacent extension at No 67. The proposal would not significantly affect the outlook from the kitchen window.

Given the location of the proposal to the north of No 67, it would not have an adverse impact on sunlight to No 67. Reflected light and the amount of sky visible will affect daylight within a room. Daylight to the ground floor bedroom window at No 67 will be affected by the existing two-storey projection at No 67 to the side and the single-storey extension in front of it. Guidance is provided within Appendix 3.7 of the Oxford Local Plan, 2020 (the Local Plan) for consideration of daylight. In assessing the effect of development on daylight, the guidance notes, as does Policy H14 of the Local Plan, that existing features that affect daylight need to be considered. The window is in a small courtyard, already subject to significant enclosure and any development adjacent to, and higher, than the shared boundary is likely to reduce daylight further.

The Council has undertaken an assessment of loss of daylight using the guidance in the Local Plan and concluded that the proposal contravenes guidance. The appellant disagrees with the Council’s assessment and has provided a diagram, within their statement, seeking to demonstrate compliance with the guidance. However, the diagram appears to relate to the side kitchen window rather than the bedroom window and angles are shown from the centre of the window rather than from cill level, as required by the guidance. Further, no consideration has been given to the effect of existing features on daylight to this window. Based on the evidence before me I conclude that the development would result in an unacceptable loss of daylight to the bedroom window at No 67.

While the proposal would not have an adverse effect on sunlight, it would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the living conditions of occupants of No [address] with regard to outlook and daylight. It would therefore be in conflict with Policies RE7 and H14 of the Local Plan which require development to protect the amenity of neighbours with regard to outlook and to provide reasonable daylight to existing and new homes.

Correspondence between the appellant and the Council during consideration of the planning application included discussion on permitted development. However, there are no substantive details of any fallback scheme before me and therefore such potential development has limited weight in favour of the appeal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.