Appeal 6001296

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a single storey rear extension, no more than 4m deep, to this semi-detached house at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/0784/PNA, and the details and plans submitted with it.

The description of development in the fourth bullet point of the above header is taken from the application form, omitting typographical errors.

The proposed development is submitted pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO). The proposal is for a “larger home extension”.

The proposal meets the size limitations for a larger home extension and, consequently, the Council notified adjoining owner / occupiers about the proposal. An objection was subsequently received from the occupier of the adjoining neighbouring property. In these circumstances, the prior approval of the local authority is required as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. When undertaking this amenity assessment, the scheme, in the view of the Council, would not be acceptable because of the impact on the amenities of the occupants of 69 [site address] (No 69). Prior approval was refused and this appeal is made against that refusal.

The impact of the proposal on the amenity of the occupants of No 69, with respect to the effect on outlook and loss of natural light.

The appeal property comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling set within a row of properties that front the road. It has a long rear garden, as do many of the neighbouring houses. The surrounding area has a residential character, and the houses range in age, style and appearance.

No 69 has a set of patio doors, with a full-length glazing panel to either side, creating a large opening on its rear elevation. The opening serves a lounge and is positioned close to the shared boundary with the appeal property. The proposed extension would project 4 metres from the rear elevation of the original dwelling. It would have an eaves height of 2.46 metres and a maximum height of 3.68 metres.

With a depth of 4 metres, the proposal would breach a 45-degree line from the mid-point of the neighbouring patio doors. However, the appeal scheme would be set slightly away from the shared boundary with No 69. It would also have a limited single storey height, with a shallow roof pitch, that would slope away from the boundary. Furthermore, the patio doors of No 69 are east facing and comprises a large opening with four, full length glazing panels. In these circumstances, despite the southerly position of the proposed extension, there would unlikely be a significant loss of sunlight to the lounge of No 69.

Likewise, and for the same reasons as set out above, the juxtaposition and size of the proposed development would not cause a significant reduction in daylight to the lounge of No 69 or have a significantly increased enclosing or overbearing effect.

For the above reasons, the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of the occupiers of No 69, with respect to the effect on outlook and loss of natural light. As such, and insofar as it is relevant to this main issue, the proposal would comply with Policy L1 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy 2017 which supports extensions where there would be no unacceptable harm to the amenities of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook and sunlight.

Any planning permission granted under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO is subject to the conditions in [name].3 and A.4. [name].3 states that development is permitted subject to a condition that the exterior materials must be of a similar appearance to those used in the existing dwellinghouse. [name].4 further states that the development must be carried out in accordance with the details approved by the local planning authority. Consequently, it is not necessary to repeat conditions set out in the legislation.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval should be granted.