Appeal 6002784

The appeal is dismissed.

I note from the appeal documentation and my site visit that the proposed development has already been carried out. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 5 [site address] , with particular regard to sunlight and visual impact.

The appeal site comprises [site address] [site address] (No [site address] ), a 2-storey terraced dwelling situated in a residential area. No [site address] forms part of a larger planned development involving a number of dwellings and a church. Condition 12 of the relevant planning permission for that development1 removed permitted development rights for additions, extensions, and ancillary buildings / structures erected within the curtilage. This was to prevent the over-development of the site and to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties. Although this is a historic condition, due to the fine urban grain of [site address] it serves a useful purpose in preventing development which could adversely impact the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

5 [site address] (No 5) is adjoined to No [site address] . The rear elevation of No 5 contains a set of double doors which serve a kitchen and which lead on to a patio. Beyond the patio is a modestly-sized rear garden. Part of the kitchen serves as a dining area, and due to its function in providing a space for both food preparation and dining, with pleasant views available over the rear garden and towards the church, in practice it is likely a well-used habitable living area. Additionally, the double 1 09/000962/FULMAJ doors provide the only means of accessing the rear garden directly from the dwelling. Hence, the kitchen is an important living space within No 5.

[address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance (2004) (SPG) provides that, among other things, as a guideline, a single-storey extension should not project beyond a line drawn at 60 degrees from the middle of the nearest ground floor window of a habitable room of an adjacent property. A very significant proportion of the double doors consist of transparent glazing. Due to the small size of the 2 rear facing windows which also serve the kitchen, the glazed double doors provide the primary source of light into this habitable room. The glazed double doors also provide a good view of the rear garden, which is visible from the small dining area immediately behind those doors.

The SPG states that, whilst it is advisable that homeowners follow the guidelines in the SPG, they are not inflexible rules and there may be some cases where alternative approaches may be acceptable. Given this flexibility, in the circumstances described above it is reasonable to apply the 60-degree test to the glazed double doors, as in effect, they function as the primary windows serving the kitchen. Figure [site address] in the Appeal Statement of Case shows that the development does not pass this test. Figure 7 in the Appeal Statement of Case refers to a 25- degree test, but as that test has not been applied to the glazed double doors, its outcome is not a determinative factor in this case. The 45-degree test referred to in the SPG is not applicable to single-storey extensions.

Due to their small size, position underneath No 5’s first floor rear projection, and that some of the light received is blocked by walling immediately to their sides inside the kitchen, the 2 windows in No 5’s kitchen likely do not provide a strong source of light into the kitchen for much of the day. As a result of the slope on which the 2 plots are located, No [site address] is situated on higher ground than No 5. As a consequence of the differing land levels between the 2 plots, the fence on the common boundary is situated atop a brick wall. The fence currently reduces the level of sunlight received to the glazed double doors.

The development extends approximately 3 metres to the rear of No [site address] . Even though it is a single-storey structure and its maximum height from the ground level to the rear of No [site address] is approximately 2550 mm, it is clearly visible above the fence directly adjacent to it which separates the 2 plots. Due to its depth, height above the fence, south-east orientation, and siting directly adjacent to the fence, the development further reduces the amount of sunlight received into the kitchen, particularly during the late afternoon. This is in conflict with the SPG, which states that extensions that overshadow a neighbour’s property, depriving areas of sunlight, should be avoided.

I saw that, due to the fence being situated atop the brick wall, the tall boundary treatment closest to the rear of No 5 currently appears conspicuous in views from No 5’s kitchen and patio. The development rises noticeably further above the fence. I observed that, due to its depth, height above the fence, and siting in close proximity to the glazed double doors and patio, it appears as a prominent and imposing feature when viewed from No 5’s kitchen and patio.

Although the appellant has mentioned that the development rises approximately 0.75 metres above the fence immediately adjacent to the development, views of the development are not only possible from the side. I observed that, as the remainder of the fence beyond the rear elevation of the development is sat at a much lower height than the part of the fence immediately adjacent to the development, part of its rear elevation is visible above the fence from No 5’s rear garden. Given that much of the built form of the development is visible from the garden, due to its significant scale and massing in this area of fine urban grain the development appears as a dominant and overbearing structure in views from the garden.

The combination of the above-mentioned factors has resulted in the kitchen, patio, and rear garden being much less pleasant spaces to use than would otherwise be the case. This has significantly harmed the living conditions of the occupiers of No 5.

I observed the existing extension at 10 [site address] (No 10) from a distance. I have not been referred to any other extensions of a similar type on [site address] . As such, the extension at No 10 is the exception rather than the rule on [site address] . In any event, few details have been provided to illustrate its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings. This example does not alter my findings above.

The submitted plans relating to the extension at [address] (No 1) show that [address] (No 3) has a large window on its ground floor rear elevation, and that the door adjacent to that window is only partially glazed. Due to the size of that window at No 3, and the limited area of glazing present in the door, it was reasonable to apply the 60-degree test from that window, whereas in this case the primary source of light received to the kitchen is from No 5’s glazed double doors. The development at No [site address] also stretches much further back relative to the rear of No 5 than the development at No 1 does relative to the rear of No 3. Considering these differences, the development at No 1 is not directly comparable with the development under consideration in this appeal. Consequently, it does not alter my findings above.

I therefore find that the development has an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 5, with particular regard to sunlight and visual impact. It conflicts with part f. of Policy DM28 of the [site address] Local Plan Review 2023 – 2041 (adopted June 2025) (Local Plan Review) which provides that, amongst other things, an extension will be permitted where the proposal is not overbearing or of a form which would be detrimental to the amenity of nearby residents by virtue of loss of sunlight, and with parts a. and c. of Policy DM30 of the Local Plan Review which provides that, amongst other things, when considering the impact on the living conditions of existing residential dwellings, development proposals will be supported where there is no unacceptable harm in terms of any significant loss of sunlight to land and buildings and development resulting in an overbearing impact.

Policy HUNG2 of the Hungerford Neighbourhood Plan 2024-2041 ([name]) (September 2024) relates to design and character rather than living conditions, and so is not directly relevant to this main issue. Nevertheless, the above-mentioned policies are sufficient for me to come to a view on this main issue.

The Council did not refuse the application on matters relating to the principle of the development, its effect on the character and appearance of the area, nor in relation to other matters such as heritage and flooding. However, even if I were to likewise reason that the development would be in compliance with the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in all these respects, these would be neutral factors rather than ones which weigh positively in favour of the development.

Whilst it has been asserted that, if not for condition 12 (mentioned above), the height of the development would be permitted development, condition 12 is extant. As explained above, it serves a useful purpose in preventing harmful development in its particular context. In any event, no fallback position exists. This is a neutral mater, which does not weigh in favour of the development.

In line with paragraph 189 of the Framework, I have given great weight to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape2. As the visual impacts of the development are localised, the development is not harmful to the wider landscape. The development has a neutral effect on the landscape and in conserving it, does not conflict with the Framework in this respect. This is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the development. In reaching this finding, I have had regard to s85(A1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended), which provides that, amongst other things, a relevant authority must seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

The development has enlarged and enhanced the available living accommodation on site, providing increased functionality and spaciousness. As these are mainly private benefits, they merit little weight in favour of the development. On the other hand, the development has harmed the living conditions of the occupiers of No 5, in conflict with paragraph 135 f) of the Framework, which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The benefits of the development are not sufficient to outweigh the significant weight given to the conflict with the policies of the development plan cited on the main issue above. None of the relevant material considerations indicate that this appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.