Appeal 3302535

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a single storey rear extension at [site address] , Hertfordshire [postcode] in accordance with the application Ref 22/0635/PD42, dated 8 April 2022, and the details submitted with it including drawing Nos 2203011 PL01, PL02, PL03, PL04, PL05, PL06 and PL07.

Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the 2015 Order) relates to extensions to a dwellinghouse, as is proposed. The house is a semi-detached property. It is not located in a conservation area nor any other Article 2(3) land. [name].1 of the 2015 Order sets out a number of restrictions on an extension in such circumstances, in particular that it can be up to 6m beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse and up to 4m in height. The proposal complies with all the restrictions and is therefore ‘permitted development’ as set out in Part 1 Class A of the 2015 Order.

[name].4(7) of the 2015 Order confirms that, where the occupier of an adjoining premise objects to the proposal, ‘prior approval’ is required as to the impact of the proposal on the amenity of the occupiers of the adjoining premise. The occupier of an adjoining property, [address], has objected to the proposal regarding loss of light. ‘Prior approval’ is therefore required with regard to the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. [name].4(9) makes it clear that this must consider the living conditions of all adjoining occupiers, which in the case of the appeal are the occupants of 52 and [address] and [address].

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties, specifically 52 and [address] and [address].

The property the subject of the appeal is a semi-detached dwelling. The adjoining property, No [address], is to the north-west. In addition, No 52 is set at a lower level than the appeal property. Extensions to the rear of the appeal property would, therefore, affect the amount of sunlight received into the rear elevation of No 52.

There is an existing rear extension. It is proposed to demolish the existing rear extension and replace it with the proposed extension. The proposed extension would be 5m deep, 5.8m wide and up to 3m tall, albeit with the eaves at 2.8m. I acknowledge that the proposed extension breaches the 45 degree line from the neighbouring windows. However, so does the existing extension and, in any event, this does not necessarily mean that a proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, which I assess below.

The proposed extension would present a slightly longer flank wall to No 52. However, the existing boundary includes not only the existing extension but also a bush largely in the location of the proposed flank wall. There would therefore be minimal worsening of the amount of sunlight received by No 52. For the same reason, there would be a very limited effect in terms of daylight, outlook and sense of enclosure.

No 56 to the south is set slightly away from the appeal property. It also lies to the south-east. The existing flank wall to No 56, which has no windows, runs further to the rear than the main rear wall of the appeal property. The proposed extension would only protrude slightly further rearwards than this main flank wall. The proposed extension would, therefore, only result in a very limited increase in sense of enclosure, or loss of sunlight or daylight, or harm to outlook to the occupiers of the property.

[address] is at the end of a long rear garden and the proposed extension would be viewed against the silhouette of the much larger existing rear elevation of the appeal property behind. There would therefore be no material effect on the occupiers of this property from the proposal in terms of loss of sunlight or daylight, sense of enclosure, or harm to outlook.

For the reasons set out above, there would be no material effect on the living conditions of occupiers of the neighbouring properties as a result of the proposal.

The objection from the neighbour also highlights an existing garden structure, errors in the submitted drawings and over-development of the site including a further planned loft conversion. There is an existing garden structure but this is not part of the proposal and it would not cause, in combination with the proposed extension, any further effects on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. The appellant has submitted a certificate of lawfulness application1 for a roof extension as part of a loft conversion. It is unclear if this has been granted although I can confirm following my site visit that it has not yet been built. In any event, this extension would not, either by itself or in combination with the proposed extension, result in the proposal not complying with the restrictions in Part 1, Class A of the 2015 Order. It is not, therefore, a material consideration.

For the reasons above, the appeal should be allowed and prior approval should be granted.

Any planning permission granted under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A is subject to conditions set out in [name].3 and A.4(11) which specify that the materials be of similar appearance to the existing house and that the development must be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.