Appeal 3333397

The appeal is dismissed.

A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been published since the planning application was determined by the Council. Both main parties have had the opportunity to comment on any relevant implications for the appeal. I have had regard to the latest version of the Framework in reaching my decision.

The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the existing occupiers.

The Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document Design and Development Control Guideline 2 states that on semi-detached and terraced houses, single storey extensions at the rear and on the boundary with the adjoining half of the property should not normally exceed 3.5m in depth from the rear of the property.

The proposed rear extension would be 6m in depth from the rear of the property. The attached semi-detached property, No [address], has not been extended to the rear. The extension would be in extremely close proximity to the common boundary of this property. The proposal would also be in close proximity to the unattached neighbouring property, No [address].

The occupiers of neighbouring properties should reasonably expect to enjoy an acceptable outlook as part of their residential lives. Given the height and length of the rear extension it would be extremely dominant in the outlook from the rear habitable living space within the neighbouring properties, as well as from their outdoor living space at the rear of the dwelling. The side elevations of the proposal in such close proximity to the adjoining properties would diminish the enjoyment of the residential living environment for the neighbouring occupiers and would harm the enjoyment the existing occupiers should reasonably expect to enjoy.

It is contended the local planning authority has granted planning permission for 6m extensions at other properties. However, although addresses have been given, I have not been provided with the details of those other examples in order to consider what similarity, if any, those developments may have to that of the proposal before me. This offers little weight in support of the proposal. In any event, this proposal can and should be considered on its own individual merits.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of the existing occupiers. The proposal would, therefore conflict with Policies SP5 and DP11 of the Bexley Local Plan and the provisions of the Framework. These policies seek, amongst other matters, development to secure good design for new development and to protect neighbouring occupiers’ amenities. Furthermore, the depth of the proposed rear extension would be far in excess of the guidance set out within the Design and Development Control Guideline 2 and therefore would conflict with this guideline.

Whilst no objections may be raised to the proposal by neighbouring occupiers there remains the need to consider the proposal in terms of the living conditions of the existing adjoining occupiers.

Having regard to the above findings, the appeal should be dismissed.