Appeal 3307088

The appeal is dismissed.

For conciseness, I have abbreviated the description of development in the heading above.

The main issue is whether the proposed second floor extension is permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO1, having regard to the amenity of adjoining occupiers and the external appearance of the dwelling.

The appeal concerns a detached bungalow situated within a small cul-de-sac. Due to the layout of properties within the cul-de-sac, windows in the front elevation of the neighbouring bungalow to the north (No [address]) face the side elevation of the appeal property. However, as No 39 occupies slightly higher ground, the views from these windows are partially over and above the appeal property. This arrangement helps to maintain a sense of openness from inside No 39.

The additional storey would be seen at close quarters from the front windows of No 39, particularly those nearest the side elevation of the appeal property. Viewing angles over and above the appeal property from these windows would be restricted. This would lead to an increased sense of enclosure from some parts of the neighbouring property. [name] 39 has other windows which would remain largely unaffected, I am mindful that it is a modest sized dwelling 1 Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) with limited internal living space. Therefore, a decrease in outlook from some of the front windows would result in a noticeable reduction in amenity for the occupiers of the neighbouring property.

Diagrams have been provided showing a 25 degree line between the proposed additional storey and No 39. This is consistent with advice published by BRE2 and referenced within the Council’s design guidance3. Together with the shadowing diagrams provided by the appellant, it is apparent that the proposed additional storey would have an acceptable impact on the overall daylight and sunlight levels experienced within No 39. However, this is not sufficient to overcome my concerns that the development would decrease outlook from the front facing windows of No 39, thereby harming the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers. For this reason, the proposal is not permitted by paragraph AA.2(3)(a)(i) of the GDPO.

The design of the proposed extension would be consistent with the design of the existing bungalow. Although the additional storey would make the appeal property taller than others in the cul-de-sac, the ridge height of the roof would be stepped down from the bungalows to the north due to the slope of the land. This would moderate the visual impact of the height increase. Hence, overall, the development would be acceptable in terms of appearance. It would therefore comply with paragraph AA.2(3)(a)(ii) of the GDPO.

The appellant has raised a number of other planning matters, including the need to enlarge the home to accommodate a family. My attention has also been drawn to house prices in the area and the environmental impacts of extending an existing home compared to building a new one. While these points are noted, my considerations in this type of appeal are restricted to matters covered in the GDPO. As such, I am unable to take these wider planning issues into account in my decision.

[name] have found that the proposed extension would be acceptable in terms of appearance, it would harm the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. For the reasons given above, the development is not permitted under the terms of the GDPO. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.