Appeal 6002317

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission was granted1 for the erection of a first and second floor side extension to the dwellinghouse, which included alterations to the access ramp and path to the side of the dwelling. The appellant is seeking to vary condition 2, the plans condition. The planning application was amended to remove a portion of the proposed extension at second floor level at the rear of the property, which was to protect the living conditions of the neighbouring property. The requested variation is to vary the plan condition No. 2 to include the originally submitted plans and omit the amended plans. The dispute between the parties relates to the size of the second-floor extension, and this shall be the focus of my assessment.

The main issue is the effect that varying the plan condition 2 would have on the living conditions of neighbouring residents with particular regard to natural light and outlook.

The property is located towards the corner of the cul-de-sac [address]. No. 12, the appeal property, is located on the southern side of neighbouring property No.10 from which it is separated by a boundary fence.

[address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) states that a two-storey extension built alongside another dwelling will have more serious effects on windows of that other dwelling than a single storey extension. The SPG requires that the furthest extent of a two-storey extension makes an angle of no more than 45 degrees with the nearest point of a neighbour’s window.

In this case the extension would be at second floor level going above an existing part of the dwelling, on the side nearest to the neighbour at No. 10. An objection was raised from that neighbour as part of the original planning application to the proposals, which raised concerns regarding loss of light to the dwelling and garden.

The Council stated in its officer report that the two-storey projection of the application dwelling currently breaches the 45 degree rule with No.10. The officer report goes on to say that the Council officer requested that the extension be amended to remove the originally proposed additional storey beyond the roof ridge of the original dwelling where this breach occurs. Due to the position of the proposed extension above the two-storey projection and based on the evidence before me, there is insufficient substantive evidence to demonstrate that the proposal complies with the guidance in the SPG.

Therefore, taking this into account, together with the height and depth of the proposed extension, I consider that some loss of daylight may occur.

However, due to the juxtaposition of the dwellings, the orientation of No. 12 on the south side of No. 10, and the depth and height of the extension, my main concern relates to the loss of sunlight resulting from the proposed second-floor extension. In my view, because the proposal contravenes the 45-degree rule, it would cause overshadowing to the rear of the neighbouring property, No. 10. In particular, it would reduce sunlight to the ground-floor openings, including the patio doors closest to the boundary between the two properties. This impact would be greater 1 Application ref: 25/02092/FUL than in the existing situation due to the increased height of the extension adjacent to the neighbouring property. The effect would be more pronounced as the sun moves around the property during the day and would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No. 10 through a loss of sunlight to the rear elevation openings.

The appellant has referred within the appeal statement to the large trees along the rear boundary of the application site, which back onto the golf course, stating that they already reduce light to the neighbouring property. [name] acknowledge that light is reduced at certain times of the day due to the trees, I consider that the proposed development would further reduce light levels. Therefore, this does not overcome my concerns.

There may be a minimal loss of sunlight to the patio area of the neighbouring property, however, based on the depth of the proposed extension and the juxtaposition of the dwellings, I do not consider that this would have a significantly harmful effect on the enjoyment of the garden area.

Due to the height of the proposed extension, which would be positioned above the existing first-floor extension and occupy an elevated location, combined with existing boundary treatments between the properties that already limit outlook towards the side of the appeal property’s garden, I do not consider that the development would result in a detrimental impact on the outlook enjoyed by the neighbouring property at No. 10.

Notwithstanding my conclusions with regard to outlook and loss of light to the neighbouring garden, I conclude that to vary the plans would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers by way of a loss of natural light to their property and would be contrary to Policy H14 of the Sheffield City Unitary Development Plan which states that new development will be permitted where the site would not deprive residents of light.

I note that the Council raised no objections to the general design of the proposals in terms of their effect on the character and appearance of the area, and that the initial amendments were not requested on this basis. On the information before me, I see no reason to disagree with that conclusion regarding character and appearance. However, this does not overcome my concerns in respect of the living conditions of the neighbouring property.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.