Appeal 6002322

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is deemed to be granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a ground floor single storey rear extension at [site address] , Greenwich, Eltham [postcode] in accordance with the application ref 25/3511/PN1 made on 20 October 2025 and the details submitted with it including Location Plan ([name]-01), Block Plan ([name]-02), [name] ([name]-10), Existing Section and Elevations ([name]-11), [name] ([name]-20) and Proposed Section and Elevations ([name]-21) pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4(2).

Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO), planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse subject to limitations and conditions. [name].4(7) to Part 1 requires the local planning authority to assess the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises, taking into account any representations received.

I consider that the main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO and the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers at [address] with regards to outlook, daylight and sunlight.

The appeal property is a semi-detached dwelling situated on the western side of [address]. The adjoining property, No. 35 is situated to the south and has a glazed bay window/door feature which projects from its rear elevation.

The extension proposed would extend across the width of the dwelling and have a projection of 6 metres. Although it would be close to the shared boundary with the adjoining property, there is a tall wooden fence which runs along part of this boundary closest to these pair of buildings. The proposal would also have a single storey form, with an overall height of just over 3m. These factors, combined with the size and the angled positioning of the neighbouring property’s glazed bay feature, would ensure it would not have a harmful effect on the levels of daylight or unduly increase the sense of enclosure within the room served by the rear bay.

The siting of the proposed extension on the west facing elevation of the appeal dwelling would also ensure that the extent of additional overshadowing on No. 35’s rear projecting bay would be limited.

I was able to see a freestanding structure in No. 35’s garden closest to the proposal. This, together with the large size of the neighbouring property’s rear garden, and with the proposed extension only extending along part of it, would ensure that the large majority of this garden area would continue to receive adequate light.

In conclusion, the proposal would not have an unacceptable harmful impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers at [address] with regards to outlook, daylight and sunlight.

Conditions are addressed in the GPDO and therefore don’t require further consideration here.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and prior approval should be granted.