Appeal 3287247

The appeal is dismissed.

I note that the Council raised no objection to the front porch extension. I have no reason to disagree with that assessment and will not deal with that aspect of the proposals any further, and just deal with the merits of the rear extension.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the adjacent residents with particular reference to the potential for overshadowing.

The appeal site is a semi-detached two-storey stone-built property with tiled roof, located within a residential area. The appeal proposals seek to erect a two-storey extension to the rear of the property, which has a stepped rear elevation. As a result, the extension extends the property between approximately 3 metres and 3.9 metres, across the full width of the existing rear elevation.

The appeal proposal would result in the two-storey extension projecting approximately 3.9 metres beyond the rear elevation of the dwelling directly adjacent to the common boundary between the two houses. There is no technical information before me in respect of sunlight or daylight.

Nevertheless, it was apparent from my site visit that the combination of the orientation of the properties, the narrow width of the properties and the position of the window openings would result in the proposal overshadowing the rear elevation of the neighbouring house. This would occur in the morning through to the early afternoon.

I am aware that the two windows affected on the neighbouring property are a rear ground floor garage window and a first floor obscurely glazed bathroom window, which ordinarily would not be considered as ‘habitable’ windows, but there is also a conservatory on the rear of the No 14 that would also lose some sunlight if the extension was to be built. Also, the overshadowing may well result in the need to use the light to the bathroom during the day.

Whilst this overshadowing would only occur for part of the day, it would, nonetheless, have a marked adverse effect on the neighbouring property and, as a result, be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of that property.

In conclusion on this matter, I find that the level of overshadowing from the proposal renders the extension contrary to Policy DS5 of the Bradford District Core Strategy (2017) which expects development, amongst other matters, to not harm the amenity of existing residents.

I note that the appellant has stated that the adjacent neighbour has not objected to the rear extension, but that is not a reason to allow the appeal. The proposals are judged on their own merits, and I have identified harm if the proposal was constructed.

The appellant has also quoted the permitted development regulations, but this related to singly storey extensions, and the example of a two-storey extension has to take into account the step in the rear and the proximity to the boundary. The regulations can be met in certain situations, but this rear extension does not meet the permitted development regulations and requires planning consent.

For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal be dismissed.