Appeal 6009836

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues raised by this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on: - a) The living conditions of the adjoining occupiers at No.[address]; and b) The character and appearance of the street scene and wider area.

The occupiers of neighbouring properties should reasonably expect to enjoy an acceptable outlook as part of their residential lives. I saw that No.[address] is sited at a slightly lower ground level to that of the appeal site. The extension would be in close proximity to No.[address] and be of a significant height to its eaves and to the ridge of the roof. It would be clearly visible in outlook from the habitable living space within No.[address] despite the pitch of the roof sloping away from No.[address].

The visually overbearing and intrusive impact of the extension in such close proximity to No.[address] would diminish the enjoyment of the residential living environment for these neighbouring occupiers. This would harm the enjoyment the existing occupiers should reasonably expect to enjoy.

The existing garage at the appeal site is partially sited in front of the rear most window of No.[address]. However, this would not obscure the proposal in the outlook from this habitable living space. There is vegetation next to the garage at the common boundary. However, such vegetation could be removed or die. As such, it cannot be relied upon to provide screening of the proposal. These matters offer little support in favour of the proposal.

It has been highlighted that under permitted development rights a 2m high boundary could be constructed between the two dwellings along the shared boundary. However, the proposal would be a taller structure. I acknowledge that if a boundary were erected this would bring a structure closer to No.[address] that could of itself have an impact upon outlook. Nonetheless, the proposal would be visible in outlook above any such boundary. As such, the erection of a boundary would not obviate my above concerns. Therefore, I do not consider such permitted development offers support or justification for the proposed development. Therefore, I give this little weight in favour of the proposal.

I have been directed to an example of a fence that currently separates the driveways of Nos.20 and [address]. However, I saw that that was a low fence and the boundary dividing those properties differed in arrangement to that of the appeal site and No.[address]. This offers little weight in support of the proposal, which should be considered on its own individual merits.

The appellant has expressed a willingness to accept a landscaping condition and a condition that would require a side window to be top opening only and obscured glazed. [name] have found the proposal would have an unacceptable impact upon the living conditions of existing neighbouring occupiers, such planning conditions would not ameliorate the objections sufficiently that would allow for permission to be granted.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of the adjoining occupiers at No.[address]. The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policy LPRHOU2 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan and the Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. That policy and SPD seek, amongst other matters, extensions not to result in harmful impacts on neighbouring residential amenity in regard of outlook.

The appeal property is sited within a corner plot and the property itself is of a similar design to that of No.[address] that is positioned at a right angle to it. However, the properties in the wider area are of a varied design, many of which host gables facing highways. The front building line varies as the siting of dwellings respond to the layout and curvature of the highways.

No. [site address] and No.[address] when taken as a pair, whilst of similar design and having the appearance of having a joint front garden, do not have a strong shared visual relationship between the two properties that would have an overriding distinctive character or appearance to the street scene. There is no prevailing pattern of development or building line at this part of the street scene. The introduction of gable projections would not be out of keeping such that would be visually intrusive given there are other gable projections in the wider area. Although the front extension would project into the open space this would not be such an irregular addition to the dwelling when considering the wider context of the locality.

The proposal would result in the loss of part of the front garden area. Nonetheless, a significant amount of garden space would be retained. I do not consider the proposal would represent a significant diminution of the garden area. As such, the proposal would not detract from the character of the street scene or would reduce the established front open space to an extent that would erode its visual contribution to local character.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the street scene and wider area. The proposal would, therefore, not conflict with Policies LPRHOU2 and LPRSP15 of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan and the [name]. These policies and SPD seek, amongst other matters, development to respond to the character of the street scene and to fit unobstructively within the existing buildings.

I acknowledge that Bearsted Parish Council has raised no objection and there is some third party support for the proposal. Notwithstanding this, the proposal needs to be considered in the wider public interest, which includes those living conditions of existing residential occupiers.

[name] have found in favour of the appellant in regard of the second main issue, this does not overcome the identified harm with relation to the first main issue.

Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.