Appeal 3276392

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of two storey side and rear extensions with rooms in the roof; raised rear patio with staircase to the garden following the demolition of the existing storage outbuilding at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 21/P/00745, dated 1 April 2021 and subject to the following

The development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this Decision;

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building;

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name]. Series 2041: Plan Nos. 01; 02; 03; 04 [name]; 05 [name]; 06 & 07.

The main issues are (i) the effect of the proposal on the streetscene of [address], and (ii) the effect on the living conditions for the occupiers of No. [address] as regards outlook and light.

On the first issue, I saw on my visit that the appeal dwelling is one of a number of detached dwellings of a similar appearance set down from the north side of [address]. Many of the houses, including No. 93, have had ground floor alterations and additions to their flanks. However, there are a number of others, mainly to the west of the appeal dwelling, that have had two-storey extensions which has reduced the gap to the neighbouring house. The grounds of appeal provide some details in this regard, with examples of two-storey side extensions, including No. 91 granted permission as recently as February 2020. There are also other examples of two-storey side extensions and of only modest gaps between buildings on this side of [address].

The appeal scheme is of a sympathetic design to the host dwelling and achieves subservience with the extension set down from the ridge and set back from the front at first floor level. A 1m gap or very slightly less would remain between the extension and the fence with No. 94, and there is also a gap of a similar width on the other side of the fence. The design of the modest ground floor projection at the front to accommodate a new entrance and larger hall would be acceptable and in my view would actually improve the appearance of the existing front elevation.

Whilst the appeal proposal would to some extent erode the space between Nos. 93 and 94, the visual impact of additional built form in both this scheme and the other flank two-storey extensions is mitigated by the fact that the houses are set well back and at this point much lower than [address], with an even steeper land fall to their rear. When combined with the predominance of hipped roofs that slope away from the neighbouring property, this preserves a pleasingly open aspect on the north side of the road.

Turning to the second main issue, the Council considers that by extending 3.5m beyond the rear of No. 94, the proposed extension would adversely affect the light and outlook currently available to that property. However, the grounds of appeal demonstrate that the extension would not in fact breach the 45 degree line as taken from the mid-point of the nearest window 1.5m from the nearest corner of No. 94.

Apart from this being acceptable for light under the Council’s Residential Extensions and [name] 2018, it is normally also a reliable indicator that a proposed development would not unduly close down the existing outlook. In the event, this outlook from the affected window is currently restricted by an outbuilding which projects over 5m from the appeal dwelling, and because of the steep fall in the land is tantamount to being of a two-storey height. With the proposed removal of this building as part of the scheme, the outlook from the rear windows of No. 94 is likely to be improved.

The proposed side extension would to some extent reduce daylight to the flank windows of No. 94, but as these are non-habitable rooms with opaque glazing the loss of light is unlikely to have an adverse effect the living conditions for the occupiers. Finally, in respect of sunlight, the rear elevation of No. 94 faces north and both this part of the dwelling and the rear garden are at present unlikely to enjoy long hours of sunlight.

There would be some additional loss of sunlight to the rear of No. 94 from the reduction of the gap between the house and No. 93. Some loss would also occur because the proposed rear extension would increase the shadow from the setting sun on late summer afternoons and evenings. However, because of the north facing aspect the effect would be relatively limited. And although not in 2 itself determinative, I note that the occupants of No. 94 have not raised this, or indeed any other issue, as an objection to the proposal.

Overall, I conclude that the appeal scheme would neither harm the streetscene of [address] nor have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions for the occupiers of No. [address] as regards outlook and light. Accordingly, there would be no harmful conflict with Policy D1 of the Guildford Local Plan 2019; Policies G1, G5 & G8 of the Guildford Local Plan 2003, and Section 12: ‘[name] of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

In allowing the appeal, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning I shall impose a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. A condition requiring the extension to be built using external materials to match the existing dwelling will safeguard visual amenity.