Appeal 6007362

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook; and whether the proposed development would provide for acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regards to outlook.

The appeal property is a detached two storey dwelling. It is located within a modern housing estate in an area largely characterised by the presence of two storey detached and semi-detached dwellings with gardens to the rear.

The juxtaposition of houses in the area is such that there is a considerable degree of overlooking across neighbouring gardens to the rear of dwellings, albeit the presence of boundary features, garages, extensions and outbuildings provides for a considerable degree of privacy at ground level.

The appeal dwelling, like its immediate neighbours, fronts [address] and is set back from this road behind an expansive area comprising a grass verge and pavement, together with a front access driveway and garden/parking area. It has a garage set to the side and rear of the dwelling and there is an extension to this, extending to the end of the rear garden.

The appeal dwelling’s rear elevation faces towards the side elevation and rear garden of Number [address] from a relatively short distance. Number 19’s garage and an outbuilding beyond this, run the entire length of the shared rear boundary with the appeal property.

The proposed development would add a first floor above the appeal dwelling’s rear conservatory. The immediate proximity, height and rearwards projection of No 19’s garage and adjoining outbuilding are such that the proposed development would have little discernible impact on the outlook from No 19. The eaves of the proposed extension would sit below the ridge height of No 19’s garage and the proposed roof would be pitched such that its ridge would extend away from the rear of No 19.

Consequently, No 19’s outbuildings would largely obscure the proposal and minimal if any, overshadowing of No 19’s rear garden – situated beyond that dwelling’s outbuildings and to the west of the proposed development - would occur.

In the above regard, I am also mindful that the Council accepts that the proposal would not infringe the 45-degree guideline and that there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would result in any unacceptable overshadowing.

Given all of the above, I find that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook and would not be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy SP55 of the Rotherham Local Plan Sites and Policies (2018); to Policy CS28 of the [name] (2014); or to the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2025) (SPD), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

In setting out that a proposal which results in a habitable room not providing sufficient outlook will normally be refused, the Council’s SPD states that high level windows/roof lights do not provide a sufficient outlook to a habitable room and result in a poor standard of amenity.

The proposed extension would be reliant on rooflights to provide its only outlook. These would be set at such a height that they would be well above the eyeline of any occupants and consequently, they would only provide for a severely restricted outlook.

Consequently, the proposal would result in a confined and oppressive environment within a habitable room.

Given this, I find that the proposed development would not provide for acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regards to outlook and would therefore be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy SP55 of the Rotherham Local Plan Sites and Policies (2018); and to Policy CS28 of the [name] (2014), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

The appellant, in support of his case, refers to planning permission being granted for a development at No 19. However, there is no substantive information before me to demonstrate that the proposed development would be so similar to this other permitted development as to provide for direct comparison. Notwithstanding this and in any case, the proposal the subject of this appeal would result in the harm identified and hence the decision below.

The proposal would fail to provide for acceptable living conditions for future occupiers and consequently, the appeal does not succeed.