Appeal 3318329

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for rear extension 3.5m in length at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/03607/FU, dated 19 May 2022, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan, Block Plan and [name]. 9709/01 [name]/Elevations.

The development proposed has already been carried out. I have therefore dealt with the appeal scheme as seeking retrospective planning permission.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal property is a two storey, mid terraced dwelling on the south side of [address]. It is set back from the road with an area of hardstanding to the front and a long rear garden. The proposed extension projects 3.5m from the rear wall of the appeal property with a width of 5.2m, an eaves height of 3.2m and a maximum height of 4.2m. It extends up to the boundaries with the neighbouring properties on either side, Nos 11 and [address].

No 11 is situated to the west of the appeal site. It includes a rear patio which is partly enclosed by a low wall and hedge with a long rear garden beyond. The rear garden level of No 11 is a little lower than that of the appeal site. Given that the proposed extension is situated to the east of No 11, the proposal does not result in any significant loss of daylight or sunlight to the neighbouring occupier’s rear windows or garden.

There is a degree of change in that the extension has some enclosing effect to one side of the rear patio of No 11. However, given the limited rear projection of 3.5m, the extension does not have a significantly detrimental effect on the neighbour’s outlook from their rear windows or patio, which continue to enjoy a comparatively open aspect to the south. The neighbour’s rear garden is of significant depth and is generally open and not significantly enclosed. The amenity value of the neighbour’s remaining garden area beyond the patio is unaffected by the development. Therefore, the proposal does not result in an overly dominant effect or the creation of an unreasonable sense of enclosure or loss of outlook for the occupiers of No 11.

The depth of the extension does not strictly accord with Policy HDG2 of the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2012 (the SPD), which advises that as a general rule of thumb single storey extensions can project 3m on a common boundary. However, lack of conformity with the provisions of SPDs is not the same as conflict with policies of a development plan. Indeed, the SPD in this case is presented as guidance. With this in mind, and for the above reasons, I consider that the proposal does not result in an overbearing effect on the neighbour’s outlook.

No 15 includes a single storey rear extension which projects a similar distance from the rear of that property as the appeal proposal. The Council has raised no concerns in relation to the effect of the proposal on No 15. Given that the extension does not extend significantly beyond this neighbour’s rear extension, I see no reason to disagree with that assessment.

I conclude that the appeal scheme does not cause significant harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address] with regard to outlook. It is not contrary to Policy P10 of the Leeds City Council Core Strategy (as amended by the [name] 2019) September 2019, which seeks to ensure that development protects residential amenity. It accords with saved Policy GP5 of the Leeds City Council Unitary Development Plan (review 2006) which seeks to ensure that development avoids loss of amenity, amongst other matters. It also accords with the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to protect residential amenity.

As the development has already taken place, conditions relating to the standard implementation period and matching materials are unnecessary. I have however, for clarity and enforceability, set out the approved plans. No further conditions are necessary.

For the above reasons, and subject to the condition specified, the appeal should be allowed.