Appeal 6002275

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey side extension to dwelling and alterations to existing rear conservatory at [site address] , Elmswell, Suffolk [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/03950, and the plans submitted with it, including [name].2025.24.02 [name], Elevations, Section, General Construction Notes and Block Plan, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

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

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the first floor rear window in the proposed extension (facing west) has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the window is installed and once installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] with particular regard to outlook and privacy.

[site address] (No.15) is a two storey dwelling located within a relatively modern housing estate. The buildings in the immediate area are generally a mix of detached, two storey dwellings and bungalows and share a similar alignment within their plots. No.15 and adjoining properties face a pedestrian footpath to the east and have long linear gardens to the west connecting to [address].

No.[address] is an adjoining bungalow to the north of the appeal property and their respective gable ends are relatively close to each other but slightly offset such that the appeal building sits slightly further back within the rear garden.

The appeal proposal would include a two storey extension on the gable adjoining No.14, replacing an existing single storey utility room. It would have an increased width, such that it would extend closer to the boundary but would retain a similar depth. It would reflect the height of the existing building, with a pitched roof and would have openings to the front and rear. The matter of concern is the massing and prominence of the proposed two storey extension in relation to No.14, together with the potential for direct views over its rear garden from a first floor window.

The proposed two storey extension would reduce the visible gap between the dwellings and would give the built form of No.15 a more significant presence alongside No.14. However, although the appeal dwelling sits slightly behind No.14, the two storey extension would not occupy the full width of the gable. Therefore, the proposed increase in built form and massing would be largely contained within the gap between the two houses and it would be viewed against the backdrop of the existing gable. Based on the plans and from what I saw on site, the proposal would not meaningfully introduce any greater built form towards the rear of No.14 or appear overly prominent. Given the relative position of the two dwellings, there is also little to suggest that the proposal would materially affect daylight levels within the main habitable rooms of No.14 or within its garden such that its presence may be more acutely felt. Therefore, there is little before me to suggest that the proposal would create an excessive sense of enclosure or have any overbearing effect on the occupants of No.14, including from within their garden.

I saw on site that most of the rear windows in the appeal property appear to mainly direct views along the length of its own garden with only peripheral views from upper windows over adjoining gardens. However, owing to the proximity of the proposed two storey extension with the boundary of No.14 and the alignment of the plots, it appears that the main aspect and views from the proposed rear first floor bedroom would be over the garden of No.14. Therefore, there is the potential for a loss of privacy and enjoyment of the garden for the occupiers of No.14.

I have taken account of the appellant’s suggestion that a condition could be imposed to any permission requiring that this rear window could be glazed in obscure glass to prevent any possibility of overlooking. Based on my findings, I consider that this suggested condition would be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and would be reasonable in all other respects.

Consequently, with the suggested condition, the proposed development would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupants at No.14 with particular regard to outlook and privacy. It would therefore comply with Policies LP03 and LP24 of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Local Plan (2023) which seek to protect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers. It would also comply with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks a high standard of amenity for occupants.

Concerns regarding the future maintenance of boundary walls and the potential for building work related to the proposal to cause damage to the neighbouring property are private matters which do not fall within the scope of this decision.

I have included reference to the plans and details submitted as part of the application in the opening of this decision to provide certainty. A condition is required relating to the commencement of development. I have also attached conditions to require matching materials to ensure that the development integrates with its surroundings as well as the condition requiring obscure glazing referred to above.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.