Appeal 3285229

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO (as amended), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions.

[name].4(7) to Part 1 requires the local authority to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received. As an objection was received by the Council, they assessed the impact of the proposal on all adjoining neighbours. The Council’s concerns relate solely to the impact on the amenity of No 18, therefore my recommendation will focus on this issue.

I consider that the main issue in this appeal is the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of an adjoining premises.

The appeal site is a two-storey, end-of-terrace dwelling located on the south-western side of [address]. The wider terrace is formed from six properties that have a staggered relationship; the rear elevations of the appeal dwelling and its attached neighbour to the north-west, No 18, are set back from the central terraced dwellings by approximately 3.5 metres. The appeal property and No 18 have long and narrow rear gardens that share a tall, fenced boundary. No [address] to this shared boundary.

The proposal is for a single-storey rear extension that would cover the full width of the dwelling and have a depth of approximately 6 metres. It would incorporate a flat roof with an eaves height of approximately 3 metres.

The proposal’s substantial depth, in conjunction with the terrace’s staggered rear elevation and narrow garden widths, would lead to an unacceptable sense of enclosure of the rear of No 18. The terrace’s orientation and the position of the proposal to the immediate south of the window at No 18 would result in a harmful reduction of its available light and would block direct sunlight. The proposal would project a considerable distance above the shared boundary and, while the flat roof would limit the proposal’s overall height, this would not sufficiently mitigate the harmful reduction of light available to No 18 nor the undue overshadowing of its rear garden that would arise from its overall large size.

As such, the proposal would unacceptably enclose the rear of No 18. It would result in a harmful reduction of available light and undue overshadowing of the rear garden to the detriment of the amenity of the adjoining premises.

The appellant has stated the proposal would respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling. However, this matter is not a consideration listed within the GPDO to be taken into account for determining this type of prior approval scheme and so it does not form part of my consideration of this appeal.

The appellant has referred to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), specifically that planning decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes. However, prior approval applications of this nature are only considered on the basis of the amenity of any adjoining premises. Therefore, other policies within the Framework are not a relevant consideration.

For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed and prior approval should be refused.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.