Appeal 3344514

The appeal is dismissed.

In the interest of accuracy, the description of development in the banner heading above is based on the decision notice.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions.

[name].4(7) to Part 1 requires the local planning authority to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received.

The main issue is the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of adjoining premises at [address] with particular regard to light and outlook.

The appeal dwelling is a terraced dwelling with an existing 3 metre rear extension. The proposed extension would be single storey and set back from the common boundary with No [address]. However, there is an existing rear extension at No 15 which lies on the common boundary with No 13. Whilst the appellant states that the extension would only project 50cm above the existing boundary fence, it would still be noticeable. The considerable depth of the proposed extension means it would appear overbearing and would create an adverse sense of enclosure for the occupiers of No 13. The extent of built form on both sides of the rear garden of No 13 would therefore harmfully erode the outlook from the ground and first floor rear windows as well as from the rear patio area.

Furthermore, because of the orientation of the buildings, the proposed extension would reduce the amount of daylight and sunlight received by the rear patio area and rear ground floor rooms of No 13. Due to the north-westerly orientation of the buildings, the loss of sunlight would occur during the late afternoon and evenings. However, as the extension would be single storey and would only project 50 cm above the existing fence, the loss of light would be very limited. The proposal would thus not result in an unacceptable loss of light.

Given the above, I conclude that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining premises at [address] with regard to a loss of outlook. It would therefore not comply with the conditions set out in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO.

The appellant states that the extension would be well-designed, would respect the character and appearance of the surrounding area, would be adequately serviced, provide additional living space for the current occupants, and contribute positively to the economic growth and social well-being of the area. However, I have assessed this appeal against the limitations and conditions set out under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. [name].4(7) requires me to specifically assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of neighbouring premises. The design and other matters referred to are not relevant to the main issue.

Whilst this prior approval appeal has not been determined on the basis of Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, Policy DM9 is relevant to the planning judgement to be made on this main issue and I have found that the development does not accord with this policy.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.