Appeal 3350368

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the Order), under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, [name].4 (7), require the local planning authority to assess the effect of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises, where any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises objects to the proposed development.

The proposed single storey extension would project 6 metres in length, 3.66 metres at its highest point and measure 3 metres to the eaves. It would extend across almost the whole width of the host property. As such, it would fall within the scope of the provisions of the Order. This is not a matter of dispute between the parties.

Following the Council’s notification of the proposed development, an objection was received from the occupants of [address] (no 60). No concerns were raised by the Council regarding the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of no 60, [address] or [address]. From what I saw on site, there is no reason for me to disagree with these

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at [address] (no 65) with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal property is located in a residential area of predominantly semi-detached dwellings set within long, narrow rear plots. Most dwellings remain unaltered with no rear extensions though some have outbuildings or garages located in their rear garden.

No 65 forms a pair of semi-detached properties with the appeal dwelling. The design of the proposed extension would harmonise and complement the host property, but would be built immediately adjacent to the boundary shared with no 65. This would be at odds with the aims of the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2 (November 2017), which requires extensions up to 6 metres in depth to be partially set in from the boundary to protect neighbouring residential amenity.

The proximity of the proposed extension to no 65 would, together with its excessive height and depth, result in an overbearing and dominating form of development, which would harmfully restrict the outlook from no 65, particularly from the sliding doors serving the living area, but also the patio area of this neighbouring property. Despite the garden being generous in size, it is apparent that the occupiers use the patio area as an intrinsic part of their enjoyment of the property.

The appellant has drawn my attention to the extensions at [address], [address] and [address]. In these instances, however, neighbouring residents did not object to the development, and prior approval was therefore not required. Consequently, the Council did not have to carry out an assessment of the impact of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring residents. As such, these examples are not comparable to the appeal scheme before me and are thus afforded limited weight.

I acknowledge that the proposal would also provide additional living space for the care of the appellant’s parents, however, this does not outweigh the significant harm that the development would cause to the living conditions of no 65 in respect of outlook.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s recommendation and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Appeal Planning Officer APP/T5150/D/24/3350368