Appeal 3315836

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a first-floor extension with internal alterations at [site address] , Brympton, Yeovil, Somerset, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/03365/HOU, dated 2 December 2022, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name] 7339 - 01 and 7339 – 02.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions at [address], with particular regard to light and visual impact.

The appeal property is a two-storey, detached dwelling set within a cul-de-sac on a larger residential estate development. It has a single-storey garage attached to one side with a hipped lean-to roof over and which is set away from the side common boundary with [address] by the width of a pedestrian access measuring roughly 0.8m wide and within the curtilage of the appeal site. No 16 is built up to the common boundary at two-storey with a side gable that includes a solitary window at first-floor level. The proposal would add a first-floor extension over the existing garage, creating a side addition that would mimic the form of the existing dwelling.

The first-floor side window to No 16 is small and obscurely glazed. The Council point out that the window serves a bathroom. This is confirmed by a letter written by the adjoining occupiers to the Council in January 2023, after the decision to refuse planning permission, within which they expressed no objection to the proposal.

The existing window serves a non-habitable room and offers no meaningful outlook. These circumstances would not change as a consequence of the proposed extension. The appeal proposal would project the two-storey scale of No 14 closer to the window. Nevertheless, a separation between both dwellings would remain. Whilst the reduced gap may diminish levels of daylight penetrating the bathroom to a degree, I am not persuaded by my own observations, or from any substantive evidence, that the impact would be significant or that it would materially affect the living conditions within No 16. As such, I can detect no conflict with Policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006 – 2028), adopted in 2015, insofar as it requires development to achieve a high quality in design. For the same reasons I find no conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s objectives for achieving well-designed places.

A condition specifying the relevant plans is necessary as this provides certainty. In the interests of maintaining the character and appearance of the area, a condition is required to ensure that the proposal is finished with materials to match the existing.

For the reasons given, I am satisfied that there would be no harm to the living conditions at [address]. Accordingly, in the absence of any other conflict with the development plan, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed.