Appeal 3349003

The appeal is dismissed.

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO, planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to conditions and limitations. [name].4 requires a determination as to whether prior approval is required for development which exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but is allowed by paragraph A.1(g). [name].4(7) provides that where any owner or occupier objects to the proposed development, the prior approval of the local planning authority is required as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises, taking account of any representations received.

The main issue is the effect that the proposed development would have on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], regarding outlook, and sunlight and daylight.

The appeal site is situated on the roughly north west side of [address] opposite the access to the Tilgate playing field car park by the corner in [address]. The appeal dwelling is located at the roughly south west end of a terrace of similar dwellings. The attached dwelling and its grounds at [address] lie roughly north east, and the fence by the common boundary between their back gardens includes a taller part by the backs of the dwellings. There is a reasonable gap between the lean-to conservatory at the back of the appeal dwelling and the common boundary with [address].

The dwelling at [address] is the same hand as the appeal dwelling, and its back includes patio doors which are close to the common boundary, and a 990 window and part glazed door further from it. There is a reasonable likelihood that the internal layout of that dwelling is similar to that of the appeal dwelling, which includes a separate living room and kitchen at the back. So, it is likely that the patio doors are the sole source of natural light and outlook for that nearby room at [address]. The proposal would replace the existing conservatory with a larger flat roofed single storey back extension.

The upper part of the nearest side of the proposal would be finished in brickwork, and as it would be taller than the fence by the backs of both dwellings and close to the common boundary, it would intrude into the important openness above the fence nearby. Due to its depth, height, scale, form and siting, the proposal would be unacceptably overbearing and oppressive in the outlook from the patio doors in the nearby room at the back of the dwelling at [address], and in its back garden close by.

As the backs of the dwellings in the terrace face roughly north west, their ground floor rooms are not likely to receive much early morning sunlight at any time of year. However, during the summer months, those rooms, and the back gardens close by, should receive some welcome sunlight later in the day. Due to its form, height, depth, scale, siting and orientation, the proposal would harmfully erode the sunlight received in the nearby room at the back of the dwelling at [address], and in its garden close by. Even so, for the same reasons, and due to the openness in the back garden at [address], the proposal would not cause a detrimental loss of daylight in that nearby ground floor room or in its nearby back garden.

As the existing mainly glazed conservatory reduces in height with its distance from the dwelling, is shallower in depth, and is sited further from the common boundary, it provides little support for the proposal. The appellant has referred to other cases in the Borough, including those in [address], [address] and [address], where prior approval was not required, or a certificate of lawful use or development was issued. However, because the considerations in all of those cases were likely to be different to those in the appeal before me, I have dealt with the proposal on its merits and in accordance with its site specific circumstances.

Therefore, I consider that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], regarding outlook and sunlight. In this respect, the proposal would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

In conclusion, the proposed development would not be acceptable in respect of paragraph A.4(7) of GPDO Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A.

For the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.