Appeal 6001410

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey side extension with single storey rear extension with rooflights. Proposed amendments to fenestration and alterations to facade materials. Partial demolition of garage at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00285/MMA, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Sevenoaks District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The appeal seeks a revision to the width of the rear extension that subsequently reduces the distance between the rear extension and adjacent fence/boundary. This type of application is possible as a condition was imposed on the original permission specifying the approved plans.

At the time of my visit, I observed the development to be substantially complete. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the plans before me.

After my site visit at the appeal site, I undertook a further site visit at No [address], where I viewed the appeal scheme from the rear garden and the dining room.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at No [address], with particular regard to light.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. The appeal seeks to extend a portion of the single storey rear extension by approximately 90mm, arising from a change in cladding to the external finish. The resultant increase would reduce the distance between the side elevation of the rear extension and the neighbouring property (No 84) from approximately 39cm to 20cm.

I have carefully considered the correspondence submitted by the occupiers of No 84 in respect to the revised position of the single storey rear extension and its relationship with the glazed patio doors that serve their dining room. Whilst the extension is positioned closer to the shared boundary than the extant scheme, I am mindful that the appeal proposal had a similar relationship with the neighbouring property and that in the context of the overall dimensions of the rear extension the change is limited. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that a single storey extension was previously in situ close to the shared boundary. Thus, the ground floor windows of the neighbouring property would likely have experienced some loss of sunlight and daylight.

My attention has been drawn to the Council’s Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document which refers to a 45-degree test to assist with overshadowing/loss of light assessments. The evidence indicates that the revised proposal fails this test by a modest degree. However, having regard to the dual aspect of the affected room at the neighbouring property and the roof profile of the extension, the proposal would not significantly reduce the level of either direct sunlight, or ambient daylight, which is enjoyed by the occupiers from either within their property, or when enjoying their garden space. Moreover, the revised proposal would not materially diminish the living conditions of the occupiers of No 84, over and above the fallback position to justify dismissal of the proposal.

For these reasons, I conclude that the appeal proposal does not significantly harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 84, with particular regard to light. The proposal therefore accords with Policy EN2 of the [name] and Development Management Plan (2015) insofar as it sets out that proposals will be permitted where they safeguard the amenities of existing and future occupiers of nearby properties.

A limited part of the rear garden of the appeal site lies within the Hartslands Conservation Area (CA). Under section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I am obliged to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the CA.

It is a relatively small CA that includes the high-density Victorian enclave located between [address], [address], [address] and [address]. Its significance is derived for its historical association as a working-class community, dominated by rows of small, terraced houses. Their cohesive built form and external appearance have a distinctive sense of place. The appeal site has a neutral contribution to the significance of the CA. I am satisfied that the scale and nature of the appeal proposal relative to the significance of the CA is such that it would preserve the character and appearance.

Interested parties have also raised concerns regarding noise from within the neighbouring property and further discrepancies with the build. However, these concerns did not form part of the Council’s reason for refusal and do not form part of the consideration of the appeal proposal before me.

The guidance in the Planning Practice Guide makes it clear that decision notices for the grant of planning permission under section 73 should also restate the conditions imposed on earlier permissions that continue to have effect.

In this circumstance, as work has commenced on site it is therefore not necessary to re-attach a time limit condition. For certainty a condition is required to ensure the development is completed in accordance with the approved plans.

As the development is substantially complete, where acceptable materials have been used in the construction, a condition for the external finish is superfluous in the context of this appeal.

The proposal accords with the development plan when read as a whole, and material considerations do not lead me to a decision otherwise. The appeal is therefore allowed.

The development shall be undertaken in full accordance with the following plans: plans [name] (A-0200 Rev.04) and [name] (A-201 Rev.04) ***End of Schedule***