Appeal 6007248

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with specific regard to privacy, access to light and outlook, and the character and appearance of the host dwelling; and whether sufficient car parking would be provided in the interest of highway safety.

[address] is a cul-de-sac within an established residential area. It is a straight road with terraces of 2-storey dwellings set out around it in a rectilinear format. The host dwelling is at the end of the terrace located at the bottom of the cul-de-sac, whilst [address] is the adjacent property in that terrace.

No. 13 has a modest south-west facing garden which angles out behind the rear of the host dwelling. It has a single storey element which extends from its rear elevation along the boundary with the property on the opposite side to the host dwelling, [address]. No. 12 has a full width 2-storey rear extension.

A 2-storey extension is proposed which would wrap the rear and part of the side elevation of the host dwelling, extending into the garden.

Due to the layout of the gardens the upper floor windows of the host dwelling already have unfettered views of No. 13’s garden. The proposed extension would extend the rear elevation of the host dwelling towards the angled portion of the boundary with No. 13 reducing the gap between, but this would not alter the amount of overlooking in existence. However, as the proposed extension would not have any windows in the side elevation facing No. 13, overlooking of the most private portion of that property’s garden, that which is directly behind the rear of the house, would be slightly reduced. The proposal would, therefore, ensure the current level of privacy for the occupants of No. 13 is maintained if not slightly increased.

In regard to access to light, there are 2 types of light to consider, sunlight and daylight. The orientation of the rear gardens means the proposal would be to the north and west of the rear elevation and garden of No. 13, therefore impact on sunlight would be minimal. However, the proximity of the side elevation of the proposal and its 2-storey height would impinge on the access to daylight for the upper and lower windows in the rear elevation of No. 13 which are closest to the shared boundary. This would have the effect of making those rooms feel gloomy and darker for large parts of the day.

In conjunction with the 2-storey extension on No. 12, the proposal would have a tunnelling effect on the views from the rear of No. 13, especially from the lower window closest to the shared boundary with the host dwelling as this window is also affected by the existing single store element on No. 13. This along with the impact on access to daylight would create an oppressive and enclosed outlook from the rear of No. 13 which would have a detrimental impact on the living conditions of occupants of that dwelling.

It is recognised that the South Gloucestershire Council Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) sets out the 45-degree test as a basis to assess impact on light and outlook. The appellant has shown in Figure 5 of their Appeal Statement that the proposal would not extend across the 45-degree line when taken from the centre of the rear elevation of No. 13. However, this is not the test, and the 45-degree line should be taken from the centre of each window in an elevation, when they relate to primary living accommodation. When taking consideration of the rear facing windows nearest to the shared boundary the proposal would extend across the 45-degree lines.

Therefore, although it has been found that the proposal may not have significant impact on access to sunlight and may provide a slight increase in privacy, this would not, in my mind, overcome the harmful effect the proposal would have on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with regard to outlook and access to daylight. As such, it would fail to comply with South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (PSPP) Policy PDP8 insofar as it requires new development to not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of occupants of nearby properties.

The properties along [address] are all of a similar functional vernacular, with few obvious alterations to their frontages. By their terraced nature, they are positioned close together and in conjunction with their rectilinear layout create a somewhat uniform street scene to [address]. The rear of the terraces are accessed via a network of lanes running along the end of the back gardens, and there is less uniformity with examples of various extensions and alterations as well as a mix of outbuildings and garages. Notably there are a series of 2-storey rear and side extensions in the immediate vicinity1, as well as the full width rear extension at No. 12. 1 1 and [address], and 14 and [address]

Due to its corner location, the host dwelling has a larger than average garden for the area. It is broadly triangular in shape and slopes away and down from the house and road towards the lanes. The appeal site also includes an additional piece of land to the rear of the adjacent property, [address], which is also accessible from the lanes.

The proposal would be a large extension but would be set back from the frontage of the property and largely screened by the adjacent terraced row of houses. It would therefore not significantly impact the frontage of the host dwelling thus ensuring it retains its uniformity with the rest of the properties on [address].

By using matching materials and proposing a reduced ridge height and narrower side profile to the host dwelling, the proposal would create a subservient relationship with the host dwelling when viewed from the side. This relationship would be further emphasised by the proposal being set back from the rear building line of the adjacent perpendicular terrace.

The proposal would be most apparent from the rear of the host dwelling as it would extend the width of the rear elevation by some distance. However, the proposed difference in ridge height would be visible and the new rear elevation would have a regularity to the fenestration that would not be out of character with the rear of the terrace. Therefore, although clearly visible the nature of the proposal, as an extension to the host dwelling, would still be apparent and the design in keeping with the house’s character when viewed from the rear.

Consequently, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling. It would therefore comply with South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Core Strategy Policy CS1, and [name] PSP1 and PSP3, as far as they require new development to be informed by and respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling. It also broadly aligns with the aims of the SPD in this regard.

It is not disputed that poor on-road parking practice can cause highway safety issues, and PSPP Policy PSP16 provides minimum off road parking standards to ensure new residential dwellings do not exacerbate such situations.

The host dwelling currently has 3 bedrooms and [address] parking spaces. 1 parking space is directly to the front of the property, accessible from [address] and the other is on the piece of land to the rear of No. 15 accessible from the lanes.

However, although the proposal would add an additional bedroom the minimum parking standards set within PSPP Policy PSP16 are the same for a 3-bedroom and 4-bedroom property, 2 spaces. With this in mind, by the retention of the existing 2 parking spaces, even if one could be considered less conveniently located, the proposal would be compliant with the policy. Improvements to the parking space accessible from the rear lane could be secured by condition.

It is recognised the distance between the 2nd parking space, and the host dwelling may mean future occupants would choose to park on the road. But there are no obvious restrictions to parking on [address] or surrounding roads, and there are other regulatory mechanisms available to deal with inappropriate on-road parking should it occur.

Therefore, the proposal could provide sufficient parking in accordance with PSPP Policy PSP16 and so minimise potential impact on highway safety.

The appellant considers that the Council have not acted positively and proactively in dealing with the application. Although regrettable, this does not impact the planning merits of the case.

[name] have found for the appellant in relation to the second and third main issues these would constitute a lack of harm. As such, by definition, they are incapable of weighing against the harm found regarding the first main issue. Consequently, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight, which would indicate a decision otherwise. The appeal should, therefore, be dismissed.