Described on the planning application form as a ‘Proposed side two storey extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 September 2026 by A Hartley, LLB (Hons), Solicitor, MBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 September 2026 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Appeal Ref: 6013124 59 St James Avenue, Upton, Chester, Cheshire West & Chester CH2 1NN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Peake against the decision of Cheshire West and Chester Council. • The application Ref is 26/00791/FUL. • The development is described on the planning application form as a ‘Proposed side two storey extension’. - Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been revised since the parties made their original submissions, however the revisions are of limited relevance to this appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the current or future occupiers of 57 St James Avenue (No 57), particularly in relation to outlook and light. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a detached dwelling with first floor accommodation in the roof space. It is within a residential area characterised by bungalows and two- storey dwellings of varied design. As with other properties in the area, the design of the appeal property means that its side bathroom dormer window directly faces the side bedroom dormer window of No 57, thus avoiding habitable room windows facing each other. 5. The proposal would introduce a two-storey side extension with a front facing dormer window. On site I observed that the side elevation to No 57 includes a door and windows at ground floor level. The room served by the larger of these windows is described as a utility room in recent sales particulars. However, it was previously a kitchen and is of a size capable of being used as a study. The occupiers state it is presently used as a craft room. I have considered the application on the basis that this window serves a main habitable room (Habitable Room). The window is designed as clear glazed, but the evidence suggests that at some point it has been Appeal Decision 6013124 2 covered in a temporary opaque film. I have assessed the proposal on the basis that the window is designed as clear glazed. 6. The Chester West and Chester Council - House Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings Supplementary Planning Document (2021) (SPD) states that a habitable room can include a study and would usually have one clear glazed window. The SPD also states that although a separation distance of 13 metres from a habitable room window to a blank wall should be sought, the existing orientation of land and buildings will be taken into account. 7. The present outlook from the Habitable Room is already compromised to some extent as it faces the side elevation of the appeal property and does not have the separation distance sought in the SPD. However, even with the proposed roof central ridge design, the height and proximity of the two-storey appeal proposal to the Habitable Room window of No 57 would create a sense of overbearing and worsen the outlook further to an unacceptable level. 8. The appellant has not submitted a technical sunlight/daylight assessment. Nevertheless, having regard to the orientation of the dwellings and the proximity and height of the two-storey extension I consider there would be an unacceptable loss of light to the Habitable Room. Overall, I find that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the current or future occupiers of No 57 by way of loss of outlook and light. 9. Consequently, I find that the proposal conflicts with policies DM2 and DM21 of the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part Two) (2019) and the SPD that seek to secure an appropriate standard of residential amenity and avoid unacceptable harm to neighbouring occupiers. Other Matters 10. My attention has been drawn to a purported fallback position, comprising a single storey side extension that could be closer to No 57 than the proposal. Limited details of such a fallback have been provided, and it is not advanced as anything more than a theoretical possibility. In any event, due to the height of the appeal proposal, I consider it would be likely to have a worse effect on the outlook and light available to No 57 than the purported fallback position. 11. The Council’s Officer Report refers to the proposal having been designed to meet the complex medical needs of the appellant which should be considered in the context of the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in the Equality Act 2010. There is no evidence before me to substantiate that the proposal is needed for these reasons, or that it is the only way such needs could be met. I am therefore not in a position to assess whether such needs would outweigh the harm caused by the proposal. 12. The proposal would provide additional floorspace within the curtilage. Policy L2 of the Framework provides that substantial weight be given to this benefit. However, the Framework also states that such proposals should maintain acceptable living standards for residents and neighbours in terms of, amongst other things, access to daylight and sunlight. Given the harm I have found that would be caused to the living conditions of the current or future occupiers of No 57 by way of loss of outlook and light it has not been necessary for me to afford substantial weight to the benefits of the additional floorspace in this case. Appeal Decision 6013124 3 13. There would be no unacceptable harm in relation to other matters including highway safety and the character and appearance of the area. These are neutral considerations that do not weigh in favour of allowing the appeal. Planning Balance and Conclusion 14. There would be modest benefits resulting from the continued use and adaptation of an existing home within a settlement, along with improvements to the family accommodation. However, these benefits would be small, largely personal to the appellant, and would not outweigh the harm that I have found to the living conditions of the current or future occupiers of No 57. 15. Accordingly, I find that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. A Hartley INSPECTOR