Appeal 6002203

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for partial demolition of existing rear extension and construction of a single-storey rear extension with a flat roof and roof lantern at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01451/HHOLD, 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 numbers: Location Plan & Block Plan - 1857 100 [name] - 1857 201 [name] - 1857 202 Proposed Roof Plan - 1857 203

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with particular regard to being overbearing and a loss of outlook.

The proposed extension would replace an existing, rear single storey outrigger and attached outbuilding, that are positioned along the shared boundary with No.1 [name]. The extension would be of similar length to these existing structures but some 0.2m taller. The effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.1 would not be impacted or harmed given their own existing extensions/outbuilding.

Whereas the existing outrigger and outbuilding are approximately half the width of the host dwelling, the proposed extension would be almost its full width. This would bring the built form closer to the boundary with the other neighbour, No.3 [name], with the extension being set in from this shared boundary by approximately 1m. The boundary is marked by a tall close-boarded wooden fence.

No.3 also has a single storey rear outrigger which appears to have been extended. This extension looks to be set slightly further away from the shared boundary than 1m. It has a bay window which serves a habitable room. Both it and other windows in the side elevation look directly onto the existing boundary fence. The Council has confirmed that the proposal would not breach its 45 and 25 degree guidelines in terms of loss of light to this neighbour’s existing windows.

The additional height and proximity of the extension would nevertheless still give it some visibility from the neighbour’s windows and garden. However, given the level of physical separation and the existing fencing which currently separates the two properties, the proposed development would not appear as a looming presence. It would not dominate this part of the neighbour’s garden or views from their windows. As such, it would not represent an intrusive or overbearing feature, nor would it unacceptably impact the neighbour’s outlook.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. It would therefore accord with Policy DES1 of the Reigate & Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan 2019 which requires new development, amongst other things, to not adversely impact upon the amenity of occupants of existing nearby buildings including by way of being overbearing and obtrusive.

The northern elevation facing No.3 would contain two high level windows. Having regard to the evidence before me and my own observations on site, I agree with the Council that these windows would not lead to overlooking or a loss of privacy.

Any noise or disturbance from the construction works would be for a temporary period and so would not amount to unacceptable effects that would unduly weigh against the proposal.

The effect of development on private property value is not a material planning consideration.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, in the interests of certainty it is appropriate that there is a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. In order to protect the character and appearance of the area, a condition in respect of materials is necessary.

Having considered the development plan as a whole, and all relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to conditions.