Appeal 6000309

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single-storey ground floor rear extension, front porch, facade material and fenestration alterations, partial first floor side extension, dormer roof extension and instillation of rooflights at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/3055/HOT, subject to the conditions in the attached Schedule.

I have used the description of the proposal as set out in the Council's Decision Notice, which is more accurate than that used in the application form. At appeal stage, the appellant provided additional information regarding the effects of the proposal on the sunlight and daylight of neighbouring properties. I sought comments from the Council on this, and have taken these into account. I am satisfied that no party would be prejudiced as a result.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of number [address] (No. 1), in respect of outlook and light.

The property consists of a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. No. 1 is the other half of the semi-detached pair. The proposal seeks to erect side and roof extensions, a porch and other external alterations. That said, it is the proposed rear extension which is the focus of the Council’s concern. This would replace an existing conservatory of similar depth, but in a position closer to the common boundary with No. 1. The extension would have a pitched roof with a split apex design.

For semi-detached dwellings, the [address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPD)1 advises that single-storey rear extensions are usually acceptable if the projection is no further than 3.5 metres deep. Beyond this distance, the eaves height should be no higher than 2.2 metres. The extension now proposed would exceed these requirements, albeit only by around a metre in depth.

The SPD makes clear that the final assessment depends on the circumstances of the site. The rear extension would be single-storey, and its eaves height would be not much taller than the existing boundary treatments. As such, the height and mass of the proposal would not be unduly large. Consequently, as a matter of planning judgement, it would not result in an unacceptable level of enclosure or intrusion for the occupiers of No. 1 or its garden, or undue harm to their outlook.

No. 1 has a ground floor window on its rear elevation that is close to the boundary. This window serves a habitable room. Representations refer to the effects of the proposal on light to the room and rear garden, and conflict with the 45-degree test of the SPD, which is derived from Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidance.

The appellant’s Daylight and Sunlight Assessment considers the effects on neighbouring properties, using BRE advice. It finds that internal light to No. 1 would not be adversely affected by the proposal, and that the diurnal path of the sun means that it would only result in minor shading to the garden of No. 1 in the early morning. The Council accepts the findings of the Assessment, and I see little reason to disagree.

For the reasons given above, the development would accord with Local Plan policy LP8. This seeks to ensure that proposals are not visually intrusive, overbearing, or create a sense of enclosure, and ensure a good standard of daylight and sunlight, having regard to the SPD. It would also accord with policy 46 of the emerging Local Plan publication draft, which makes similar requirements.

The Council has provided suggested conditions, which I have assessed and where necessary amended, having regard to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. A condition requiring adherence to the approved plans is necessary for certainty.

In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, the external materials must be those specified on the application form. However, the finish of the rear dormer is unclear and so would need to be approved before its construction. Adherence to the [name] is necessary for safety reasons. To ensure the privacy of nearby occupiers, the first-floor side window should be obscure glazed and non-opening, other than a top light.

The Council has suggested that certain diesel equipment or vehicles used in construction should be required to be fuelled by ultra-low sulphur diesel. However, I have little reason to believe that this would be a particular issue here, and no planning policy justification has been brought to my attention. Accordingly, and 1 [address] Extensions and External Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) adopted May 2015. given the relatively small scale of the proposal, such a condition would be excessive.

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

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan, U3_92 rev A, U3_93 rev A, U3_95 rev A.

The external materials used in the development hereby approved shall be those specified in the application form, other than in respect of the rear dormer roof extension, where details of its external finish shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to its construction. It shall thereafter be built in accordance with the approved details.

The development hereby approved must be carried out in accordance with the [name] dated December 2024.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the new first floor side window has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window which is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the window is installed. Once installed, the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. End of Conditions