Appeal 6002327

The appeal is dismissed.

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, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse subject to specific limitations and conditions.

[name].4 provides that where a proposal exceeds the limits in paragraph A.1(f) but falls within those in paragraph A.1(g), an application may be made to the local planning authority to determine whether prior approval is required and should be granted. [name].4(7) specifies that where any owner or occupier of any adjoining premises has objected to the proposed development, the local planning authority is required to assess its impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises.

In this case, the Council notified adjoining owners and occupiers as required, and an objection from the adjoining property at No [address] was received. Accordingly, paragraph A.4(7) is engaged, requiring an assessment of the proposed development’s impact on the amenity of any adjoining premises.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the amenity of adjoining premises, having specific regard to outlook and sense of enclosure.

At my site visit I observed the low-lying brick toolshed that straddles the boundary between Nos 50 and [address], attached to the dwellings on both sides of the boundary. Attached to the toolshed on the No 52 side and set in from the boundary is a lean-to structure incorporating a polycarbonate roof supported by a timber frame, with a solid side elevation mounted on top of the toolshed facing the appeal site. Beneath this structure sit ground floor windows and a glazed door in the rear elevation of No 52. Whilst the solid frame of the current structure partially inhibits light and outlook from some of these openings, it nonetheless retains a reasonable degree of light and outlook through the open rear elevation and translucent roof.

Notwithstanding this existing arrangement, the proposed development would introduce a tall, continuous wall extending a significant depth along the shared boundary close to the rear-facing windows of No 52. Due to its depth, height, and position against the shared boundary, the extension would noticeably narrow the sense of openness currently enjoyed. Consequently, it would materially intensify the sense of enclosure and appreciably reduce outlook from the affected internal rooms as well as from the patio and adjoining garden space.

Although the existing lean-to creates some degree of enclosure to No 52, it is lightweight in form, incorporates translucent materials, and appears easily removable. Accordingly, it would not mitigate or neutralise the enclosing effect of the proposed extension’s significantly greater height, depth, solidity and permanence. Similarly, I am not persuaded that the presence of boundary vegetation, which is changeable in form and extent, would provide a reliable form of mitigation to offset the development’s adverse impact.

Furthermore, the extension’s proposed eaves height would significantly exceed the threshold set out in the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document, January 2025 (the SPD), which advises a maximum 2.5 metre height for single-storey extensions exceeding a depth of 3 metres on attached dwellings. Although it is guidance rather than a mandatory standard, I afford the SPD, as well as Policy DMP1 of the Brent Local Plan 2019-2041, [name] 2022 (the BLP), significant weight within the context of paragraph A.4(7) of the GPDO, insofar as they are tools to safeguard amenity where no alternative measurable criteria exist within the GPDO. The development’s clear conflict with the SPD therefore carries significant weight.

The appellant places considerable emphasis on the favourable outcome of the submitted Sunlight and [name]. However, compliance with technical criteria relating to sunlight and daylight does not resolve the separate and distinct harms arising from outlook and enclosure. I also note that the Council did not refuse the application on sunlight or daylight grounds, and therefore the absence of harm in this respect is a neutral consideration that does not weigh in favour of the scheme.

I have taken account of the appellant’s reference to purported similar extensions in the local and wider area, including the deep ground-floor extension at the adjacent, non-adjoining dwelling of No [address]. However, each proposal must be determined against its specific circumstances. In this case, given both the objection received and the material effects on the amenity of No 52, the existence of other developments does not alter my assessment of the proposal’s impacts.

I also note the appellant’s reference to inaccuracies in the Council’s evidence. However, my decision is based on the proposal before me and my own site observations, and the identified errors do not alter the material facts based on the submitted plans and its relationship to No 52. Accordingly, even if well-founded, the cited inaccuracies do not persuade me to depart from my previous findings.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would result in an unacceptable loss of outlook and increased sense of enclosure to the occupiers of No [address]. Consequently, the development would harm the amenity of adjoining premises within the meaning of [name].4(7) of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. Insofar as they are relevant to the consideration of amenity, the development would also conflict with Policy DMP1 of the BLP and the SPD, which collectively seek to safeguard amenity.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.