Appeal 3340531

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a side extension with amended roof details and provision of a first floor to provide additional accommodation at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application reference SMD/2023/0585 dated 27 November 2023 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 23/673/02A, 03A, 04A, 05.

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

The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No [address], with regard to loss of light and harm to outlook.

The appeal property comprises a detached single storey residential bungalow constructed with facing red brickwork and a concrete pantile roof. The proposal would re-model the property to create a full two-storey dwellinghouse including a garage with dummy pitched roof at the side adjacent to [address].

The appeal property has an extant [name]/2023/0001 for an upward extension. The Appellant states that in the event the appeal is refused it is their intention to implement the [name]. The Prior Approval works are for a similar extension to the appeal proposal, and as such I see no reason why this would not occur. As there is a reasonable prospect that the [name] works would take place they constitute a fall-back position to which I attach great weight.

The sole issue between the parties concerns the effect of the forward projecting two-storey element of the proposal on the first-floor bedroom window of [address]. This is the element of the proposal that has a greater effect on No 20 than the fallback proposal. The Council has concluded that the elongation of the gable end would result in an overbearing structure close to that window, which would result in an unacceptable loss of light and harm to outlook from the affected bedroom.

However, the forward projecting gable complies with the adopted [name] Supplementary Planning Guidance “45 degree standard”. This is because it is off set from the affected window. It is also set slightly back from the single-storey element of the proposal, further away from the window. I have therefore found no particular circumstances that would justify a departure from the Council’s adopted “45 degree standard”. Consequently, the gable end element would not have an unacceptable effect on outlook from the neighbouring window or be unduly overbearing.

With regard to loss of light, the affected window in No 20 faces north west and the proposed projecting gable would be to the south west of the window. There would, therefore, be negligible loss of sunlight to the affected bedroom in comparison to the fallback position. There would also be no unacceptable loss of light to the affected bedroom because of the distance to the proposed gable extension.

Overall, I find that the proposal would not have a materially greater effect on the living conditions of occupants at No.20 than the [name] already granted by the Council. Nor would it unacceptably harm the living conditions considered on its own merits.

The proposal would not, therefore, unacceptably harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at No [address], with regard to loss of light and harm to outlook. The proposal therefore complies with Policy DC1 of the [name] (2020) and the [name] (2018), and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The flat roofed garage has been demolished. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined this appeal based upon the plans as submitted.

Objections have been made in relation to the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. I am satisfied having regard to the submissions from the main parties and my observations on site that the proposal will contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council. I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans as this provides certainty. In the interests of the visual amenity of the area I have imposed a condition regarding materials.

Having taken into account all representations made, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.