Appeal 3347928

The appeal is dismissed.

Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.1(g) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO) grants planning permission for development consisting of an extension that would not exceed 6 metres. That ‘permitted development right’ is subject to limitations and conditions, including those set out in paragraph A.4 of Class A. [name].4(2) specifies that the applicant must make an application to the Council and (at 7) that the Council would need to give its prior approval of the development if an adjoining occupier/owner objects to the scheme. I recognise that an objection was submitted to the Council. [name] was deemed to be required and the scheme was refused by the Council within 42 days of the application being made.

The main issue is therefore whether the proposed development complies with the limitations imposed under paragraph A.1(g) on development permitted under Class A and, if so, the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of [address] (No 142), with respect to the effect on outlook, daylight and sunlight.

The proposed rear extension would be six metres deep. It would occupy the full width of the rear elevation of the semi-detached dwelling and be on the shared boundary with No 142.

My observations on site, including seeing the site from inside the adjoining semi-detached dwelling, demonstrate that the interior space is arranged in a mirror layout of the appeal dwelling. The neighbouring dwelling has two rear windows. The window near to the shared boundary serves a living room, the window further from the shared boundary of the rear elevation, serves a kitchen. I consider both to be habitable rooms for assessment purposes, but acknowledge that the living room has two windows, the second being front facing.

Saved policy GP2, [name], of the Walsall Unitary Development Plan [2005] (UDP) identifies that the Council will assess the effect of development on daylight and sunlight. [name] of the ‘Designing Walsall’ Guidance states that the Council will not usually approve development that would breach its 45-degree code unless the proposal would be single storey and project a maximum of 3.5 metres. Due to the proximity of the neighbouring windows to the side boundary and the scale of the proposed extension, I find that the proposal would breach this code for both the kitchen and living room windows.

The proposal would be to the southeast of No 142, casting a shadow and reducing direct sunlight into the identified habitable rooms for large parts of the day. Also, daylight levels would be eroded for a similar reason. Furthermore, due to the scale of the proposal, and its proximity to neighbouring habitable rooms, the proposal would also harm outlook, albeit to a modest extent. Consequently, despite the living room also having a front-facing window, the proposal would result in a significant loss of sunlight and daylight, and a moderate reduction in the outlook, to the living room and kitchen of No 142.

Accordingly, the proposal would result in a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of the neighbouring dwelling in terms of a loss of sunlight, daylight and outlook. As such, the proposal would conflict with policies CSP4, ENV2 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy [2011], UDP policies GP2 and ENV32, and [name] of the ‘[name]. These seek, among other matters, for development to promote high quality design and take into account effects such as sunlight and daylight experienced by neighbouring properties.

The appellant has referred to nearby development that is suggested to be similar to the proposal and has identified that No 142 has vacant land to its side. I do not have the details of the referenced extensions in evidence to identify whether these are sufficiently like the proposal to support the scheme. These also are not within the immediate environs of the appeal site, thereby in any event these would have a limited effect on the site’s context. Also, in referring to the vacant land to the side of No 142, it is unclear how this benefits the neighbouring occupiers in a manner that would off-set the harmful effects of the proposal to the identified habitable rooms.

For the above reasons, the proposal fails to comply with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.1(g) of the GPDO and therefore the appeal is dismissed.