Appeal 3301106

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, [name].4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a single storey rear extension at [site address] , Barnet [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application Ref 22/1371/PNH, including plans: [name]/12RD/302 Issue A; [name]/12RD/303 Issue A; Existing & [name]/12RD/301 Issue A; Site Location Plan XEVA/12RD/304 Issue A; Proposed Site Plan XEVA/12RD/305 Issue A; dated 14 March 2022, and the details submitted with it pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4(2).

The relevant provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) do not require regard to be had to the development plan or supplementary guidance. Accordingly, I have had regard to those policies and any supplementary guidance cited in the decision notice only in so far as they are a material consideration relevant to matters relating to the main issues. They are not, in themselves, determinative.

The main issue is therefore the effect of the proposal on the amenity of adjoining premises.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwelling with an existing rear conservatory which would be removed in order to erect a single storey rear extension of 6 metre (m) depth, 3m height and a width covering the rear elevation of the host building. The extension would be built along the shared boundary with No.12.

The proposal would extend to a significant length along the shared boundary of No’s 12 and 14. However, the total height of the extension would be lower than that of the existing conservatory. As such, while the proposal may be visible above the fence, the outlook from the rear windows of No 12 would not be visually dominant or overbearing to users of the rear garden. As the outlook to the other side would remain unaltered, the sense of enclosure would not increase, particularly given my findings on the visibility of the proposal above the fence.

I have had regard to the representation received from the occupier of No 12 with regard to loss of light. However, as the Council have pointed out, due to the position of the extension to the north of that property, a loss of light would not occur when considering the movement of the sun.

Consequently, the proposed development would not be harmful to the amenity of the adjoining premises with regards to outlook or appear overbearing. As such it would accord with Policies CS1 and CS5 of the CS1, DM01 of the DMP2 and D3 of the LP3 which seek to ensure development proposals are designed to allow for adequate privacy for adjoining and potential occupiers and users, among other things.

The appellant’s attention is drawn to the conditions and limitations imposed on the granting of prior approval within paragraph A.3 of the GPDO. These ensure the details of the proposal are adhered to.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval is granted.