Appeal 6000915

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00578/HHA, subject to the following

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 nos 4CR/4/25-1 and 4CR/4/25-2A.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on drawing no 4CR/4/25-2A.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on living conditions for occupiers of [address], with regard to privacy in the rear garden.

The appeal site and [address] are neighbouring terraced houses, at one end of a row of four similar properties. Behind no. 4 (the appeal site), there is a small, flat roofed kitchen extension and modest raised patio. Alongside that, behind no. 2, is a conservatory in a small, paved area. The rear gardens of each property continue beyond these existing extensions but, rather than being side by side in a typical terraced layout, they are arranged one behind the other. The garden of no. 2 includes land directly behind the patio on the appeal site, while the garden for no. 4 is much further back, at the other end of a narrow access path.

Due to this unconventional garden layout, there is already a significant level of inter-visibility between the appeal site and the neighbouring garden. Boundary fences provide screening at ground level, including between the patio and conservatory. However, from the existing upstairs window on the host dwelling, most of the neighbouring back garden, including the area behind the patio, is easily seen. Views are also available between the gardens at the rear, over the boundary hedge. Consequently, neither of the rear gardens are entirely private.

The proposed extension would introduce a rear-facing first floor window in even closer proximity to the neighbouring property. The plans state that it would be only 4.4 metres from the boundary behind the patio, which is well below levels of separation typically sought in a more conventional layout. However, the visible area would be very similar. If anything, the more oblique view towards the neighbouring conservatory would be a slight improvement. While in many circumstances such a close and direct relationship would feel intrusive, in comparison with the established layout, the effect on privacy within no. 2 would be insignificant.

The occupiers of no. 2 have had the opportunity to comment on the proposed development but have not done so. While absence of objection does not of itself mean that there is no harm, it does mean there is no specific evidence that those currently occupying this neighbouring dwelling find either the existing layout or the proposed extension intrusive. As far as can be determined, the arrangement of the rear gardens is well established and tolerated.

I therefore conclude, in the particular circumstances of this case, that the proposed extension would not be harmful to living conditions for occupiers of [address], with regard to privacy in the rear garden. It would not conflict with any relevant criteria in Policy BE14 of the Brentwood Local Plan 2022, including the requirements that proposals should avoid unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy and safeguard the living conditions of adjacent residents.

The Council assessed the effect of the proposed extension on sunlight or daylight to neighbouring properties, concluding that it would not harmfully overshadow any relevant areas. Having observed the layout for myself, including the relationship between the proposed extension and both adjoining properties, I have no reason to reach a different view.

I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans in the interests of certainty. I have also imposed a condition requiring compliance with the external materials specified in the application. The wording used would be more precise than the standard condition requiring matching materials, since different but harmonising materials are specified. But it would have a similar effect, and the condition is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.