Appeal 6000125

The appeal is dismissed.

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 effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook, sunlight and daylight.

The appeal building is a two-storey dwelling located in a predominantly residential area. The appeal site has a large garden, and it is proposed to erect a single storey extension that would be over 6m in depth, have an eaves height of over 2.5m and an overall height of less than 4m.

No [address] is a neighbouring property, and its rear garden is perpendicular to the rear garden of the appeal site. The overall depth of the proposed development would mean that it would cover the entire width of No 20’s garden. The eaves height and overall height would be in excess of the fence and outbuilding located to the rear of No 20 and its distance would be less than 1m from the boundary.

The overall depth, height and closeness of the proposed development would dominate the outlook from the garden of No 20 and result in an overbearing feature. The proposal would also have an enclosing effect through covering the entire width of No 20’s garden and as a result of being higher than the fencing and existing outbuilding, would reduce the amount of daylight received by the garden.

The Council consider that the proposed development would have an overshadowing effect on the garden of No 20. However, due to the sloping height of the proposal, combined with the outbuilding that already existing to the rear of No 20’s garden I consider that here would only be a minor loss of sunlight which would mostly affect the rearmost section of the garden which is already covered by the outbuilding and would therefore not result in an unacceptable loss of sunlight.

Notwithstanding my findings on sunlight, the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 20 in regard to outlook and daylight. I find conflict with Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan 2021, Policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan ([name]) Development Plan Document September 2012, Policy DM01 of Barnet’s Local Plan (Development Management Policies) Development Plan Document September 2012 and guidance contained within the Local Plan Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance October 2016. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development delivers an appropriate outlook, provide sufficient daylight and protect and enhance the gardens of residential properties.

The appellant has referred to other developments in an attempt to justify the appeal proposal. I do not have the full details in respect of such examples so I cannot be sure of the circumstances. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits, based on the evidence before me.

In regard to the outbuilding at No [address], I note that the appellant considers this has been constructed without detriment the living conditions of No [address]. However, I have been provided with no information on how this has been assessed. In any case the example referred to is a detached outbuilding which is materially different from the extension proposed through the appeal scheme.

The appellant has put forward a fallback position in the form of permitted development rights for a two-storey extension. I accept that the fallback position is available.

However, on the basis of the appeal proposal being designed to create more space for accessible ground floor accommodation, a two-storey extension would result in a significant reduction in the amount of ground floor space for this purpose. I am therefore not convinced that there is a greater than theoretical possibility that the fallback would be implemented should the appeal scheme be dismissed, and I therefore afford it no weight.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.