Appeal 6002074

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for 2 storey rear extension and detached garage with games room at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref S25/1138, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

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 no TQRQM25168164801322 and drawings titled ‘Proposed plans’, ‘Proposed elevations’, ‘Proposed side elevation’ and ‘Location Plan Rev: A 03/09/2025’.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on drawing titled ‘Proposed elevations’ and ‘Proposed side elevation’.

The Council considers that the detached garage element of the proposal would not give rise to any significantly harmful impacts upon the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, and I agree with that finding. Therefore, the second main issue comprises the effect of the proposed 2 storey rear extension element only on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and • The effect of the proposed 2 storey rear extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No 43), with particular reference to light and outlook.

The surrounding area is characterised by broadly level open fields which are mainly bounded by hedgerows, with only a small number of dispersed dwellings sited alongside the unadopted highway. The adjoining property, No 43, has been extended to a degree that it results in a markedly different appearance from the appeal property, and the wider area displays considerable variation in the design and scale of nearby dwellings. The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling set back from the highway and largely screened from public view by tall entrance gates, boundary planting and an existing 2-storey detached outbuilding located within the neighbouring front garden.

The proposal comprises the erection of a 2-storey detached garage positioned to the side of the dwelling, set behind the existing rear elevation, together with a 2- storey rear extension projecting and spanning most of the property’s width, set in slightly from the side boundary with No 43. The existing single storey detached garage would be demolished to facilitate the development.

Section 6G of the [name] for Rutland & South Kesteven Supplementary Planning Document (November 2021) (the SPD) advises that extensions are expected to respect the scale and character of the existing dwelling. It does however also advise that, in some circumstances, it may be possible for an extension not to be subordinate but still respect the integrity and character of the original dwelling.

The proposed rear extension would match the existing eaves height of the host dwelling, incorporate a lower ridge line, and use materials consistent with it. The extension would also not be visible from public vantage points. Although not subordinate in scale, I find that it would nonetheless preserve the integrity and character of the host dwelling. The proposed detached garage, although relatively large, would remain subordinate to the host dwelling due to its lower eaves and ridge heights and its set-back position, which would reduce its visual prominence.

Accordingly, I find that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or surrounding area. It would therefore comply with Policy DE1 of the South Kesteven District Council Local Plan 2011- 2036 (adopted January 2020) (the Local Plan) which, amongst other things, requires new development to not have an adverse impact on the street scene, settlement pattern or the landscape character of the surrounding area and be appropriate given the context of the area.

The proposed 2-storey rear extension would be slightly set in from the common boundary with No 43 and would project significantly beyond the existing rear elevation. No 43 has already been extended along the full length of the common boundary with a single storey addition with dual-pitched roof over. This property has a rear window serving an upper floor habitable room.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the proposed extension would breach a 45-degree line taken from this window. The SPD advises that this line provides a ‘rule of thumb’ guide to whether adequate levels of light and outlook for neighbouring properties would be available.

However, the SPD guidance is dependent on context. The land to the rear of the appeal site and No 43 has an open aspect which comprises expanses of open fields. This provides good availability of light and outlook from directions other than that affected by the proposal. As such, I find that the proposed 2-storey rear extension would not be over-dominant such that it would not result in significantly harmful effects on light or outlook.

Accordingly, I find that the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of its effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No 43, with particular reference to light and outlook. The proposed development would therefore comply with Policy DE1 of the Local Plan which, amongst other things, requires development to ensure there is no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring users.

Conditions specifying the time for commencement and requiring compliance with the approved plans are necessary for reasons of certainty. A further condition requiring the external materials to comprise those shown on the approved plans is necessary to preserve the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions specified.