Appeal 6007527

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the revised roof form on the living conditions of the occupiers of the upper floor room at No.14 [site address] , with particular regard to outlook and light.

The appeal property comprises a detached dwelling situated within the [address] Conservation Area. At the time of my site visit the property was substantially obscured by scaffolding associated with the ongoing implementation of planning permission ref. 23/01201/HOU. Nevertheless, from the submitted plans, photographs and planning history, I understand the dwelling to comprise a post-war infill property that differs materially in character and appearance from the surrounding Victorian and Edwardian properties within [site address] .

The appeal site lies immediately adjacent to No.14 [site address] . Of particular relevance to this appeal is the upper floor south-facing window at No.14 which serves a compact room containing sleeping, sitting and kitchen facilities. The room also benefits from two modest rooflights positioned within the roof slopes.

Planning permission ref. 23/01201/HOU established the principle of substantial remodelling and extension works to the appeal property, including a revised roof form adjacent to No.14. The approved scheme incorporates a hipped roof arrangement and provides a fallback position against which I have assessed the effects of current proposal.

I acknowledge that the submitted BRE daylight and sunlight assessment concludes that acceptable daylight levels would remain within the room overall. I have no reason to disagree with that finding. I also recognise that the BRE guidance is intended to inform planning judgement and should not be interpreted as a strict and rigid set of rules.

The submitted BRE assessment also identifies a major adverse reduction in sunlight to the principal window serving the room. Whilst the appellant argues that the practical effect of this reduction would be moderated by the presence of the two rooflights and the continued availability of daylight from other sources, I do not agree. The rooflights are modest in size and positioned at a relatively high level within the room. Whilst they would continue to admit daylight, they would not provide the same quality of sunlight presently experienced through the principal window. The room functions as a compact and multi-functional living environment containing sleeping, sitting and kitchen facilities. In these particular circumstances, I consider the major adverse reduction in sunlight identified by the submitted BRE assessment would materially diminish the quality of the living environment experienced by occupiers of the room.

I also consider that the proposal would result in an unacceptable reduction in outlook from the room. The principal window currently affords a degree of openness and visual connection with the surrounding area. Whilst the proposed recessed section seeks to retain some outlook, the available view would remain heavily constrained by the close proximity of the proposed roof slopes and associated walling. The resulting outlook would be limited and dominated by built form. Given the role played by the room as the principal living space for its occupier, I attach significant weight to the effect of the proposal on the quality of outlook available from this window. I consider that the proposal would create an oppressive sense of enclosure and would fail to provide a satisfactory outlook for occupiers.

[name] accept that acceptable daylight levels may remain within the room overall, I find that the major adverse reduction in sunlight identified by the submitted BRE assessment, together with the loss of outlook identified above, would result in a poor standard of living accommodation for occupiers of the room.

Consequently, I conclude on the main issue that the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.14 [site address] , with particular regard to outlook and sunlight. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy PCS23 of The Portsmouth Plan (2012), which seeks to protect residential amenity and secure a good standard of living environment for existing occupiers and the relevant design and amenity objectives set out in para. 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Relevant emerging Policy is set out within the submission version of the Portsmouth Local Plan (2024). Emerging Policy PLP1 states that development proposals will be refused where they give rise to unacceptable adverse impacts in relation to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers as well as future occupiers/users of the development. I consider this policy to be consistent with the design objectives of the Framework. Whist the plan has been submitted, it has not yet been subject to examination, I therefore attach moderate weight to this policy.

I acknowledge the previous appeal decision relating to planning application ref. 25/00248/HOU (APP/Z1775/D/25/3368222). Whilst the current proposal seeks to address the concerns which led to the dismissal of that appeal, I have nevertheless found the proposal before me to result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.14 [site address] . The circumstances surrounding the previous appeal decision do not lead me to a different conclusion.

I have also had regard to the appellant’s submissions regarding the wider benefits associated with the remodelling works and the limited effect of the proposal in terms of the Conservation Area. The appellant has cited economic benefits resulting from the proposed development, social benefits as a result of an improved living environment for the appellant, and environmental benefits through the efficient use of land. However, I do not consider these matters outweigh the harm identified to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.14.

I conclude that the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, to outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.