Appeal 3373089

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for first floor extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00927/FULL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no. CM12 4118 PLN [name] 001.

The effect of the proposal on • the character and appearance of the dwelling and its surroundings, and • the living conditions at Nos. 290 and [address], in respect of privacy.

The dwelling forms part of a sequence of quite large and tightly packed detached houses. As the first floor rear addition would extend from slightly below the height of the existing roof ridge, it would not be visible in the street scene. To the rear, the existing single storey flat roof addition at No 292 matches the even building line of this housing sequence. The first floor extensions would not encroach beyond this building line and, in terms of scale and character, the enlarged house would broadly match the position and scale of those to either side. In this context, the additions would not be of excessive depth and neither would the hipped/flat roofed elements appear particularly contrived. The proposal would fit in adequately with the character of the existing house and the neighbouring dwellings and be neither an unduly prominent nor visually incongruous addition. The first floor extension would blend in satisfactorily with the overall character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, in accordance with Basildon District Local Plan (LP) saved Policy BAS BE12 and paragraphs 135 and 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The balcony area would be sited between the two first floor rear additions, limiting outward views to the back garden and the further parts of those of the immediate neighbours. The glass balcony edge would be flush with the proposed bedroom windows at either side. This would avoid any ready overlooking of either neighbour’s closest and more frequently occupied garden spaces, being the parts adjacent to their rear windows and patio doors. Any overlooking from this central balcony space would be little different to that from the adjacent bedroom windows proposed either side. This would reflect a commonly prevailing situation, where rear facing first floor rooms gain oblique views towards the ends of neighbouring back gardens. This is a regular occurrence in built up residential areas, where there is a quite close arrangement of two-storey development.

In the context described, the proposal would not increase the sense of being overlooked nor result in an undue loss of privacy for the occupants of Nos. 290 and 294, preserving reasonable levels of amenity for these neighbours, in compliance with saved LP Policy BAS BE12 and Framework paragraphs 135 and 139.

For the reasons explained, this proposal would not have a materially adverse effect upon either the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area or the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at Nos 290 and 294. Other than the standard three year time limit for commencement, the only other condition necessary is one which for certainty specifies the plans approved, which already show matching external materials. Subject to these two conditions, I conclude the appeal succeeds.