Appeal 3260812

The appeal is allowed and approval granted under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph A4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended)(GPDO) for a 4 metre extension at [site address] in accordance with the details submitted pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 1, Paragraph A4 (2) of the GPDO.

The main issue is the impact of the proposed extension on the amenities of the neighbouring property at No. [address] with regard to outlook.

The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) require the local planning authority to assess the proposed development solely on the basis of its impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises - taking into account any representations received. My determination of this appeal has been made in the same manner.

I saw on my visit that the appeal dwelling already has a full width single storey rear extension and the application for prior approval is to extend this by a further 4m, resulting in a total depth of just under 8m from the original house. The proposed addition would be flat roofed at a height of 3m and stepped in from the existing extension to increase the distance between it and the conservatory at No. 42 to 3.6m.

However, the neighbour at No. 42 has objected on the basis that the extension would have an adverse effect on their amenity as regards a loss of outlook, privacy, and overshadowing.

Firstly, as regards overshadowing, because No. 42 lies to the northwest of No. 40, any potential shadowing effect would be limited to a brief period in the mornings. Furthermore, the appellant’s grounds of appeal have demonstrated that under paragraph 4.4 of the Council’s Householder and [name] the scheme complies fully with the guidance. This is accepted in the Officer’s report and there is therefore no reasonable basis for withholding permission as regards sunlight.

In respect of privacy, no windows are to be provided in the flank wall of the proposed extension and there can therefore be no issue of overlooking.

Finally, in respect of the remaining objection of a loss of outlook, the ground level at No. 40 is slightly higher than at No. 42 which would potentially increase any adverse effect. However, with the step-in of the 4m extension creating a space to the boundary of over 2m and a total gap to the neighbour’s conservatory not too far short of 4m, I do not consider that a reasonable case can be made that the 3m high extension would be overbearing or cause any significant loss of outlook. This is even more so given that the existing hedge on the boundary restricts any view of No. 42 to the roof of the conservatory rather than its flank wall. There would be a similar screening effect in the opposite view from No. 42 to No. 40.

Having regard to these points and my assessment on the site, I conclude that the neighbour’s objection does not have sufficient weight to overcome the presumption of approval in the legislation in favour of the extension. Accordingly, I allow the appeal and grant prior approval in the terms of paragraph 1 above.