Appeal 3277216

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. P0118.21, dated 25 January 2021, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 01 - Existing & Proposed Floor Plan/Elevation and 01 - Location Plan, both dated December 2020.

The main issues in the appeal are the effect of the proposal on character and appearance of the host dwelling and the wider area, and the effect on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with particular regard to outlook and light.

The appeal site is a two storey house which is located at the end of a terrace on the corner of [address] and [address]. Its immediate neighbour is [address] which is also a two storey house. The dwellings in the area are not of one house type but there is some uniformity of design and siting around the appeal site and its immediate neighbours. Both 107A and [address]. The rear of both properties at first floor level and above can be viewed from [address].

There is an existing two storey rear element at 107A, but the proposal is to substitute part of that with a first floor rear extension which has a sloping roof and dormer window on the section closest to no.107. No.107 has been extended at the rear at ground floor level. At first floor level it has two rear-facing windows on the original building line.

In terms of impact on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, the proposal would not appear too bulky, or high or over dominant. Notwithstanding the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011), which advises that two storey rear extensions should be set in from the common boundary with any attached dwelling by no less than 2 metres and should project no more than 3 metres, the western cheek of the dormer would be set in by about 0.5m, the face of the dormer would be set in from the ground floor rear elevation and the cat-slide roof would keep bulk to an acceptable extent. The pitched roof to the dormer and its lower profile would also be sympathetic to the appearance of the host dwelling.

Consequently, I conclude on this issue that the proposal would maintain the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the local area in line with Policy DC61 of the [name] and Development Control Policies Development Plan Document (adopted 2008). Living conditions of occupants of [address]

A two storey rear extension built up to the common boundary of an adjacent attached dwelling is not generally acceptable. I have referred to the SPD above which I have taken into account.

However, in this particular case, the sloping roof and position and design of the proposed dormer would ensure that there is a 45 degree angle allowing light to reach the rear facing first floor windows of 107. This would also ensure that the proposal is not unduly overbearing or dominant or overshadowing when viewed from those windows in 107. Furthermore, the design of the proposal would provide an extension which is not unduly imposing for occupants of no.107 when it is viewed from their rear garden.

Consequently, I find the proposed length, depth and height of the proposal to be acceptable in terms of impacts on living conditions of the occupants at 107 with particular regard to outlook and light, and I find there would be no conflict with Policy DC61 of the aforementioned DPD.

Having taken into account all representations made, and for the reasons given above, I allow the appeal. [name].C.