Appeal 3339041

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of two-storey and single-storey rear extensions at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/HOU/23/1278/NICL, dated 28 September 2023, subject to the following

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

The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan 883/001 Existing Site Plan 883/005 Existing General Arrangement 883/010 Proposed Site Plan 883/050 Proposed General Arrangement 883/100

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

Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 no windows or other form of openings shall be formed above ground floor ceiling level in the north or south elevations of the development hereby permitted.

The sole main issue is the effect of the proposed rear extensions on the amenity of the neighbouring property, No [address], with respect to dominance and overshadowing of its rear conservatory in particular.

The built development would comprise a 1.4m deep, two-storey extension across the full width of the semi-detached dwelling at [site address] , in combination with a part-width two-storey extension a further 1.6m deep and a ground-floor extension projecting a total of 4m from the main rear elevation.

This arrangement is not dissimilar to many rear additions along [address] and there is no dispute that the extensions are acceptable in themselves. Concern arises due to the juxtaposition of No 30 with No 28 next door.

No [address] stands immediately south of No 30, at the junction of [address] and [address]. With its semi-detached partner at No [address], No 28 is set at 45 degrees to the junction in a triangular plot, narrowing to the rear to form a compact back garden where the rear conservatory is sited.

Due to this particular layout, the proposed single- and two-storey extensions would appear relatively prominent in the outlook from the rear of No 28 and from the conservatory especially. Even so, the view northward from No 28 would only be partly interrupted and, given the urban character of the locality, I do not consider that the effect on the outlook would be unacceptable in planning terms.

The crucial question is to what degree the proposed extensions would overshadow the conservatory; and it is understandable that this concerns the residents of No 28 and the Council. However, existing and proposed shadow analysis submitted by the Appellant demonstrates that, due to their orientation, with No 30 located north of No 28, the rear parts of both properties currently remain within their own shadow throughout the day, all year round. The shadow analysis further demonstrates that this situation would not alter with the proposed extensions in place.

Accordingly, I do not consider that natural daylight and sunlight reaching the rear of No [address] and its conservatory would be unduly reduced by the proposed extensions at No 30.

I therefore find no planning objection on amenity grounds with respect to dominance or overshadowing affecting No [address].

I conclude that the appeal proposal complies with the relevant design Policy DE1c of the Swindon Borough Local Plan and that the appeal should be allowed, subject to conditions to require matching finishing materials and removing permitted development rights for any additional first floor windows, in order to prevent future overlooking towards No 28.