Appeal 3282644

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor hipped roof side and rear extension in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 21/00573/FUL, dated 4 June 2021, subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on living conditions at the next door property, Keildon, in terms of an overbearing effect.

Froxfield is a detached 2 storey house which sits between 2 other houses including Keildon to the north. The proposal is for an extensive first floor extension wrapping around from the north side to include the full width at the back. This has largely been constructed though the works do not appear to be fully in accordance with the proposed plans for this appeal.

There is an existing permission for a similar, only slightly smaller extension (reference 20/00702/FUL). I am satisfied that were this appeal to be dismissed, it is highly likely that the permitted scheme would be implemented instead. I therefore take it into account as a fall-back position and give it substantial weight in my assessment.

The eventual extension - whether as proposed here, as already permitted or as built - would include a very long length of 2 storey wall topped by a pitched roof on the boundary with Keildon. This is an imposing structure but its impact on the outlook from Keildon is mitigated to some extent by its location next to that property’s front drive and garage. Views from a first floor window at Keildon would be affected, but that window is high enough to get extensive views of the sky over the top of the new roof. The grassed front garden area is set away from the extension and is not considered to be a primary amenity space due to its location and lack of privacy. Finally, the impact of the appeal proposal would not be significantly different from that of the scheme already permitted. With all this in mind, I find that the appeal proposal would not be unduly overbearing on occupiers of Keildon.

There would be little impact on privacy at either Keildon or other neighbouring properties, subject to a condition as set out below. Keildon’s front garden would be overshadowed to an extent, especially during winter months, but again this area is not considered to be the most important amenity space for that house.

I conclude that the appeal proposal would not unduly harm living conditions at Keildon, or at any other neighbouring property. The proposal therefore accords with the aims of Policy BF1 of the Binfield Neighbourhood Plan, Policy CS7 of the [name], saved Policy EN20 of the Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, to ensure high quality development that protects the amenity of neighbours.

I have also taken account of the comments submitted by neighbours on other matters. In particular, I find no significant difference between the permitted and appeal proposals in regard to the impact on local character and the street scene.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council, bearing in mind the 6 tests set out in the Framework. As it is not clear whether the development taking place on site is in line with this proposal, the standard condition requiring commencement within 3 years is required. I impose a condition specifying the relevant plans to provide certainty. Details of materials require control to protect local character and appearance, especially given the prominence of this extension in the street scene. In the interest of highway safety it is also necessary to ensure adequate car parking for this dwelling, given that it would be substantially increased in size. Obscure glazing of a first floor side window is required to protect privacy at a neighbouring property.

A few other conditions suggested by the Council are not necessary, however. A condition requiring obscure glazing of any other first floor side windows that might be installed in the future would duplicate a control that already exists through the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order. There is no need to prevent doors enclosing an existing garage as this is set well back from the street and is not required as part of the parking provision. Finally, a condition requiring secure cycle parking is not needed given that a suitable outbuilding exists at the site.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location and [name], [name], [name], [name], [name] & [name] and [name] & [name].

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall be as follows: - Walls - White monocouche render with red face brick slip features; - Roof - Brown tile and flat roof constructed of materials similar in appearance to materials on the existing dwelling; and - Windows and Doors - Similar in appearance to those found on the existing dwelling.

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the associated car parking has been provided in accordance with the details of the approved Block Plan. These spaces shall thereafter be retained for the parking of vehicles.

Notwithstanding the detail of the approved plans, the first floor side window hereby permitted shall not be glazed at any time other than with a minimum of [name] 3 obscure glass (or equivalent) unless the parts of the window which are clear glazed are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed. the window shall also non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed.