Appeal 6000292

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant’s Grounds of Appeal included new material evidence in the form of a Sunlight and Daylight report. The Council was provided with an opportunity to comment on this evidence. No comments were received. I have had regard to the report in my decision.

Under Article 3(1) and Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 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. The Council refused to grant prior approval under paragraph A.4(7) of Class A, which provides that where any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises 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. This has been reflected in the main issue, below.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook, sense of enclosure, sunlight, and daylight, and on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook and sense of enclosure.

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 6), a 2-storey mid-terrace dwelling, with an existing single-storey rear extension, located in a predominantly residential area.

[address] (No 8) has glazed patio doors leading onto a wedge-shaped rear garden. I observed that the outlook from the living space served by these windows, and from the rear garden, is presently constrained by the presence of the rear elevations of several buildings fronting [address], by the tall trees found beyond the rear garden, and by the existing extension at No 6. In particular, the existing extension at No 6 appears as quite an imposing structure when seen from No 8’s rear garden.

The proposed development would extend the above-mentioned single-storey rear extension at No 6, so that it would have a maximum depth of approximately 6 metres. The proposed development would have an eaves height of approximately 2.3 metres. It would incorporate a 45 degree slope above the eaves, resulting in its roof-level being set-in from the common boundary with No 8 by approximately 0.85 metres. Its maximum height would be approximately 3 metres.

Even taking account of the above-mentioned slope and set-in from the common boundary, due to the maximum height and depth of the resulting extension, and its siting directly adjacent to the common boundary with No 8, the proposed development would result in a tall and long mass of built form along the boundary, in close proximity to No 8’s patio doors and rear garden. This would unacceptably undermine the available level of outlook from the affected living space and the garden, and would unduly increase the sense of enclosure within these areas. This would make these areas much less pleasant to use. Harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 8 would result.

The proposed development would be sited to the west of No 8. Due to the path of the sun, and that the proposed development would be single-storey only, any loss of sunlight to the rear windows and garden at No 8 would likely be minimal, and limited to the afternoon. Given the scale of the proposed development, it would not appreciably reduce the amount of sky visible from the rear windows at No 8, meaning that any loss of daylight would not be significant. On this basis, I accept the findings of the Sunlight and Daylight report, that no reduction of sunlight to No 8’s rear windows would occur, and that the proposed development would only result in a small reduction of daylight to the rear windows at No 8. However, the lack of harm identified in terms of sunlight and daylight would not overcome the harms identified above.

[address] (No 4) has 2 rear windows serving its kitchen, which face towards No 4’s rear garden. A tall wall is present adjacent to these windows (forming part of No 4’s lean-to roof), which runs along part of the common boundary between No 4 and No 6. This wall runs slightly past No 6’s existing extension. It presently constrains the available level of outlook from those 2 windows.

The slope and set-in referred to above would be mirrored on the side of the proposed development closest to No 4. Although these features would somewhat reduce the bulk of the proposed development, considering the maximum height and depth of the resulting extension, so close to the 2 rear windows which serve No 4’s kitchen, the proposed development would unduly exacerbate the existing constrained level of outlook from those windows. For the same reasons, it would unacceptably increase the sense of enclosure for users of the kitchen. In combination, these factors would make the kitchen a much less pleasant space to use. As such, the proposed development would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 4.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 8 and 4, with particular regard to outlook and sense of enclosure.

The appellant has drawn a comparison between the eaves height of the proposed development and the 2 metres allowance for the erection of structures such as fences and walls under Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO. Whilst the eaves height of the proposed development is marginally higher than this allowance, its maximum height is not. Development under Class A of Part 2 is accordingly not directly comparable with the proposed development. Considering the maximum height of the proposed development, the exercise of that permitted development right would not result in a more harmful development than that proposed. This is not a matter which alters my findings on the main issue above.

The proposed development would create a number of benefits, including (amongst others), providing enhanced living accommodation on site, and economic benefits arising from the construction phase. Nevertheless, the GPDO offers no discretion where conflict is found with its requirements. Hence, the various benefits of the proposed development do not change my findings on the main issue above.

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