Appeal 6007656

The appeal is dismissed.

In the course of the planning application process, the appellant amended the appeal scheme to omit an originally proposed extension above the garage and replace it with a single storey side extension, along with a two-storey rear extension and internal alterations. The Council made its determination against these revised plans. The description of development in the banner heading above is consequently taken from the Council’s decision notice and the appeal form, as it more accurately describes the proposal.

The appellant has requested that the appeal consider both the plans originally submitted with the application, along with a modification to the ground floor side extension, and the subsequently revised scheme determined by the Council. However, the Procedural Guidance for Planning Appeals includes advice that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a proposal, and that it is important that what is considered by the Inspector at appeal is essentially the same as that considered by the Council. The original scheme is materially different to that assessed by the Council in making its decision, and it has not had the opportunity to formally determine it. In these circumstances, it would be procedurally unfair to revert to the original scheme. Therefore, my decision has been made on the revised scheme upon which the Council also made its decision.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at [address] and [address], with particular regard to any overbearing impact and outlook.

Accessed from [address], [address] is a small cul-de-sac comprising eight detached dwellings. With the exception of Nos 2 and 7, which are two-storey houses, the remaining properties in the Close are bungalows. Despite this variation in scale, the dwellings are of a similar depth and all set back to some degree behind open front gardens and driveways. Architecturally, the common use of red brick and artificial stone, together with similar window styles and proportions, further contributes to a reasonably cohesive street scene.

The appeal property at No 2 has been previously extended with a single storey flat roof garage to the north facing elevation, which projects forward into a front porch. The appeal proposal would introduce a two-storey extension to the rear of the house. It would also include a single-storey side extension, which would be positioned behind the garage. This element of the scheme would project past the current rear elevation to align with the building line of the rear extension.

The two-storey rear extension would extend to approximately 6.5m, a projection that would be nearly three-quarters the length of the existing house and noticeably elongate the depth of the host property. Furthermore, the ridge line to the rear extension would be a continuation of the main roof, such that it would not appear as a subordinate addition to its host. Combined with the substantial depth of the single storey side projection, the cumulative scale and massing of the appeal scheme would result in an unduly dominant and disproportionate addition that would be unsympathetic to the scale and form of the original host dwelling and fail to complement its appearance. It would be visually harmful as a result.

No 2 also occupies a relatively prominent position within the cul-de-sac, projecting forward of the adjacent bungalow at No 4. Consequently, even if the two-storey extension would be to the rear, it would introduce an extended length of walling that would be visible from the street above the roofline of No 4. Along with the single-storey side extension, it would also be discernible from neighbouring gardens, particularly those immediately to the north on [address]. The combined scale of the appeal scheme would add significant bulk and massing to No 2 that would be at odds with the more modest proportions of neighbouring dwellings. Even though the appeal property is neither listed nor within a conservation area, the appeal scheme would, nevertheless, result in an incongruous and unsympathetic addition that would be harmful to the character of the street scene.

My attention has been drawn to other extended properties within the locality. However, none of the examples on [address], [address] or [address] obviously relate to a two-storey rear and single storey side extension to be comparable to the scheme before me. Moreover, I have no details of these planning permissions, nor their history. Consequently, I cannot be certain as to the detailed considerations that applied in those cases. In any event, I am required to reach conclusions based on the individual circumstances and merits of this appeal and my findings relate to the scheme before me.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policies SP5, HS5 and NE3 of the Burnley Local Plan (2018) (BLP). These policies seek, amongst other matters, to ensure that house extensions are of a high standard of design, are subordinate to the existing dwelling and respectful of the existing context, including in relation to scale and massing. It would also conflict with general design policies within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The existing flank elevation of the appeal property at No 2 is separated from the side wall of the neighbouring bungalow at [address] by a modest gap of approximately 5m. On my site visit, I saw a habitable room window in the side elevation of No 4, partially visible above the shared boundary fence and looking towards the rear elevation and garden of the appeal property.

The Council’s Residential Extensions SPD (2022) ([name]) advises that a minimum distance of 15m should be achieved between habitable room windows and blank walls, to safeguard outlook and privacy. It has been put to me that the two-storey rear extension would comply with the 45-degree rule and not obstruct the outlook from No 4’s side window, or cause overshadowing. However, at approximately 5m, the separation distance from this window to the blank wall of the extension would be significantly below the guidance within the SPD, and I have no compelling reason before me to depart from it.

Furthermore, due to its depth, scale and siting, the proposed rear extension would introduce a substantial two-storey elevation in close proximity to the side window of No 4, and it would visually dominate the outlook from it as a result. Even if the height of the boundary fence were to be raised, it would remain prominent above it. The two-storey rear extension would consequently have an oppressive and overbearing effect, and it would result in an undue sense of enclosure and loss of daylight for the occupiers of [address].

To the north, the side boundary fence to the appeal property forms the rear boundary to [address], a dormer bungalow with habitable windows at both ground floor and within the roof space. I recognise that the rear windows to No 6 align principally to the existing main side elevation and garage to No 2. However, the appeal scheme would introduce a hipped roof to the garage that would extend for the entire length of the single storey side extension and be visible above the shared boundary fence. Even if the 45-degree rule would be met, the appeal scheme would still fall short of the minimum 15m guidance set out within the SPD in its proximity to the habitable room windows to the rear of No 6.

Moreover, I am mindful that in relation to the sun’s path, the appeal proposal would be positioned to the south of No 6. Whilst the single-storey side extension would be partially screened by the common boundary fence, its hipped roof form, together with the two-storey rear extension, would remain visually prominent and would extend along a substantial section of the shared boundary. In the absence of any detailed assessment such as a shadow study, based on the evidence before me, by reason of its scale, massing and close proximity to No 6, the appeal scheme would appear unduly dominant and overbearing when viewed from the rear-facing habitable room windows of that dwelling. It would lead to a material loss of outlook for this neighbouring occupier as a result. The use of window treatments to the side elevation would not overcome this harm, as the adverse effect would arise from the scale, form and siting of the extensions rather than a loss of privacy.

The appellant has drawn my attention to circumstances where a minimum distance of 12 metres between dwelling windows and extensions have been permitted, as well as a previous extension granted at [address]. However, I have not been provided with details of any of these planning permissions nor their history. Therefore, I cannot be certain as to the detailed considerations that applied in those cases. Consequently, I afford them limited weight and they do not provide a justification for the appeal scheme, which I must consider on its individual merits.

For these reasons, I find that the appeal scheme would unacceptably harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at [address] and [address] arising from an overbearing impact and lack of outlook. It would therefore be contrary to Policies SP5, HS4 and HS5 of the BLP (2018). These policies seek, amongst other matters, to ensure that developments do not result in any unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupants. It would further conflict with guidance set out in the [name] (2022) and objectives set out at Section 12 of the Framework, including to promote a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The appellant raises a number of concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the planning application, and I appreciate that they sought to engage with the Council during the application process. However, such matters are outside the scope of my decision. My role is confined to a consideration of the scheme before me, which I must consider on its individual merits.

For the reasons above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan, and there are no material considerations that warrant taking a decision otherwise than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.