Appeal 3301649

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey side extension and single storey rear extension; creation of a new driveway and access onto [address] at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, ref: APP/22/00150, dated 25 January 2022, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: 279-BA-2021-03 E.

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.

The description in the banner heading above is taken from the planning application form. For the purposes of this decision, in the interest of preciseness, I have used the description given within the Council’s decision notice and the appeal form.

At the time of my site visit, work on the proposed side and rear extensions had already commenced.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of no. [address], with particular regard to levels of sunlight.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling adjacent to but set back from [address]. There is an overall conformity to the position of the front elevations of the pairs of semi-detached dwellings within the area. However, the three pairs comprising no’s 13 to [address] are increasingly stepped back resulting in a large variation in the relationship of their front elevations.

No. [address] spatial relationship with the appeal property, separated by their adjoining single storey garages. The front elevation of no. 21 is set back from that of the host dwelling by a sizable distance, in addition to being at a higher elevation than the appeal site. There are three windows within the end gable of no. 21, with the window positioned closest to the front elevation the sole window to a bedroom.

The proposal would see the replacement of the existing single storey garage with a two-storey side extension. The proposal would also involve a single storey rear extension, driveway, and access which the Council has raised no objections to. From the evidence before me, I see no reason to take an alternative view.

The Council has drawn my attention to the House Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance (2004) (SPG), specifically the requirement of a separation distance of 14 metres between the sole window to a habitable room and a blank wall.

The proposal lies to the south-east of no. 21 and would result in the built form at first floor level extending closer to the boundary. Nevertheless, this increase is relatively modest limiting the proposal’s impact on the levels of sunlight received from the first-floor bedroom window within the end gable of no. 21. Moreover, the proposed side extension would not extend beyond the existing ridge height or rear elevation of the host dwelling, further limiting its impact on levels of sunlight.

The unique relationship of the appeal property with no. 21 described above would result in the first-floor end gable bedroom window of no. 21 largely overlooking the roof slope of the proposal, rather than being faced by the blank gable end. This has been further demonstrated by the appellant through the inclusion of the window’s position in relation to the proposal within the submitted plans and appeal statement. As such, the proposal would not result in a materially significant impact on the existing level of sunlight received from the aforementioned bedroom window.

I acknowledge that the proposal would result in the separation distance between the appeal property and bedroom window within the end gable of no. 21 being reduced. Nevertheless, the existing separation distance is substantially below that specified within the SPG. As there would be no unacceptable loss to levels of sunlight, I consider it acceptable to depart from this section of the SPG in this instance.

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the proposed rear extension would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of no. 21, with particular regard to levels of sunlight. Consequently, the proposal would accord with Policy HS11 of the Wirral Unitary Development Plan (2000), which seeks to protect the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties.

I recommend that a condition be imposed requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of certainty and precision.

As work has already started on the proposed side and rear extension there is no need for the standard time limit condition to be attached.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development are specified within the submitted plans. As such, there is no need for a separate materials condition.

The Council has suggested an informative regarding highway matters, however appeal decisions do not include informatives. Nonetheless, the appellant will be aware of the matter from the Council's submissions in any case.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

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