Appeal 3317477

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a pitched roof first floor extension at the rear and a single storey extension to the side to the house at No. [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, ref. 22H/2974, dated 22 October 2022, subject to the following conditions:

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: 00025-BR-03-00 - [name] P100; 00025-BR-03-00 - [name]-P101; 00025-BR-03-00 - [name]-P102; 00025-BR-03-00 - [name]-P103; 00025-BR-03-00 - Proposed Plans Roof Plan-P104; 00025-BR-03-00 - [name]-P105; 00025-BR-03-00 - [name]-P106.

The main issue derives from the Council’s reason to refuse to grant planning permission. They said the first floor rear extension at No. [site address] would be an over dominant form of development that would detrimentally impact on the amenity of the neighbouring gardens and restrict the outlook of habitable rooms in houses in the adjoining road, [address].

No. [site address] is a 2 storey hipped roof semi-detached house. The neighbouring houses immediately to the south-west are the semi-detached pair of houses, Nos. 37 and [address], which rear elevations and gardens face north-eastwards towards the side elevation of No. [site address] . The gap between the 2 buildings was said to be 10.2m.

I can understand the Council’s concern that [name] house extension project would harm the amenity of the close neighbours in [address]. But the combination of the 10m or so gap between the rear of Nos. 37 and [address] and the side of No. [site address] and the fact that the proposed rear 2 storey projection at No. [address] the gap between the properties, favours the project. Also, the new extension situated to the north-east of the [address] properties means there would be no reduction of sunlight at the rear of Nos. 37 and [address]. The new extension would not cause any significant overshadowing or loss of light at the rear of those properties, particularly as No. 6 is set lower than the houses in [address].

The Council’s worry that the [address] neighbours’ outlook towards No. 6 would be restricted is, in my view, misplaced and not an objection that weighs much against allowing the proposed extensions at No. 6. Indeed, habitable rooms in the rear elevations of Nos. 37 and [address], particularly those at No. 39, already overlook the side and rear garden of [name] home at No. [site address] , potentially impinging upon his family’s privacy. Seeking to protect such possible overlooking seems inappropriate.

Subject to the imposition of the standard time limit on the permission, (s.91 (1) of the Act; para (5) - 3 years), and a condition requiring compliance with the application drawings, the appeal succeeds and planning permission is granted for [name] home extension scheme.

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.