Appeal 6002589

The appeal is dismissed.

The description provided on the application form includes information that does not describe acts of development. [name] have taken this into account, I have utilised the shortened version taken from the decision notice and appeal form.

The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of 48 [name], with particular reference to sunlight, daylight and outlook.

The appeal site is a two-storey semi-detached dwelling. The proposal is for a two-storey extension, continuing the existing roofline and creating dormer windows to the first floor. The proposed extension covers the full width of [site address] , such that the proposed side wall of the extension is up to the boundary between No.46 and No.48.

Though the depth of the extension is modest, due to the height, location, proximity to the boundary and orientation of the extension, the proposal would lead to a reduction in sunlight across the rear of No.48 through the latter half of the day, and daylight in general. This would cause harm to the occupiers living conditions through overshadowing and loss of daylight of the windows and rooms to the ground floor of No.48 to an unsatisfactory level.

The existing outlook from the ground floor window of No.[address] boarded fence along the boundary line for the length of the garden. Considering the existing outlook from the windows, the modest depth of the proposed extension and the eaves height of the extension, the impact would be limited and the outlook from the window would still be at a satisfactory level. Due to the eaves height and utilisation of dormer windows, the impact on the outlook from No.48’s first floor windows would be negligible.

I conclude the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of No. 48, through the loss of sunlight and daylight to the dwelling. Consequently, the development would conflict with Policy D5 of Plan:MK 2019, which seeks that proposals are required to protect a good standard of living conditions including sunlight and daylight within buildings. It would also conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework, which seeks to provide a high standard of living conditions for existing and future users.

An argument has been forwarded by the appellant that there are comparable developments in the area, however no specific examples have been provided to me including whether these developments have obtained planning permission or otherwise.

The appellant has raised that there have been discussions with the occupiers of No.48 where there was openness to the proposal. However, as part of the application process a representation was received by [site address] Council (the Council) to the contrary. In any event my role is to objectively assess the effects of the proposal, and I have found harm to the living conditions of No.48.

Concerns have been raised with the behaviour of the Council during the application process; however, this is a dispute for the appellant and the Council to resolve outside of the appeal process. The appellant has also stated they would have been willing to accept amendments to the proposals; however, I must determine the appeal based on the proposal before me.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations that indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.