Appeal 6002822

The appeal is dismissed.

Subject to limitations and conditions, 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) grants planning permission for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse. If a proposed enlargement would exceed the limits in [name].1(f) but falls within those in [name].1(g) to Part 1, [name].4(5) provides that the local planning authority should notify each adjoining owner or occupier. Where any objections are received, [name].4(7) stipulates that the prior approval of the local planning authority is required as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises. In this instance, an objection from an adjoining premises has been received.

I am required to assess the proposal as a prior approval application as set out within the parameters of the GPDO. Regard can be given to development plan policies insofar as they are material considerations; however, they are not in themselves determinative.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 52 [site address] , with particular reference to outlook and light.

The appeal property is a two-storey terraced house located within a residential area. A number of properties on this side of [site address] have been altered, some with deep, single storey rear projections.

The proposal would incorporate a flat roof, which would be 3 metres in height. It would project 6 metres in depth from the rear of the host property. As it would span the full width of the property, it would be built right up to the shared boundary with the neighbouring property, 52 [site address] (No 52) which is marked by a wood panel fence, approximately 1.8 metres in height.

No 52 has a rear facing bay window positioned in close proximity to the shared boundary. Based on the evidence before me and my site observations, the bay window serves a habitable room. Given the significant depth and close proximity of the proposed extension to No. 52’s bay window, it would be a dominant structure visible above the boundary fence from both the bay window and the immediately adjacent area of No 52’s garden. Consequently, it would result in an unacceptable enclosing effect when experienced from the neighbouring bay window and adjacent garden area.

Whilst the gardens on this side of the street are not south facing, I note that the extension would be located to the south of No 52. As such, it has the potential to have a harmful effect on the levels of sunlight received by the nearest windows of the adjoining property.

It has been suggested that the removal of an existing tree within the appeal site to facilitate the extension would improve the level of natural light received by the occupiers of No 52. However, I have no substantive evidence from either party to quantify any change in light levels. Sunlight to the nearest habitable room and the garden area immediately to the rear of No 52 may currently be reduced to some extent by the presence of the tree. However, it seems to me that due to its size, proximity and orientation to the south, the proposal would be likely to materially increase this effect, resulting in the home and area of garden immediately adjacent to the proposal feeling noticeably darker.

I acknowledge that homeowners are not required to retain greenery within their private gardens. Notwithstanding this, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposal would result in harm to the amenity of adjoining premises, specifically to the occupiers of No. 52, with particular regard to outlook and light.

My attention has been drawn to the rear extensions at 20, 32, 40, 56, 68 and 70 [site address] . However, I have not been provided with information as to whether the circumstances in that case were the same as the case before me. Therefore, I am not satisfied these cases are directly comparable to the case before me. Notwithstanding this, each development must be considered on its individual merits, and I have reached my conclusion based on the individual merit of the appeal proposal.

The proposal would improve the quality of living accommodation at the appeal property. Nevertheless, this is a private benefit, to a single household and does not justify the harm identified to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. It has also not been demonstrated that a similar level of accommodation could not be achieved with an alternative design.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I consider that prior approval should not be granted, and the appeal should be dismissed.