Appeal 6002949

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey side extension and single-storey front extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/P/01195, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with approved plan 4046-P01a.

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the window on the first-floor side elevation has been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of that window that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. The window shall be permanently retained as such thereafter.

The description of development in the banner heading is taken from the application form. However, the proposal also includes a single-storey front extension, therefore I have amended the description of development in my formal decision.

An amended plan was submitted during the appeal to address a discrepancy between the proposed floorplans and elevations which was identified by the Council in the officer’s report. As the amended plan does not change the proposal I have accepted the plan, and my decision is made on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the two-storey side extension on the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with particular reference to outlook.

[address] is located in an urban residential area; Nos 39 and 41 are detached two-storey dwellings set in generous plots. The house at No 39 which is next to the proposed extension has a first-floor bedroom window on the rear elevation which is significantly recessed from the main rear elevation and is the nearest first-floor window to the common boundary with the appeal property.

The proposed two-storey side extension would not extend significantly beyond the main rear elevation of No 39, but it would significantly extend past the recessed window. Nevertheless, Nos 39 and 41 are set away from the common boundary and the recessed window is set in from the side elevation of No 39, which would result in an adequate separation distance between the proposed extension and the recessed window. Furthermore, the roof would be hipped away from No 39 which would avoid excessive bulk. In addition, the recessed window is not the only window to that bedroom as it also has a window to the front. I acknowledge that No 39 is set at lower ground levels than the appeal property, but the difference is minimal. For these reasons, the proposal would not unacceptably affect the outlook from this window, which would accord with the advice in the Guildford Borough Council Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (2018).

The dormer window on the east side of the proposed extension would extend marginally beyond the roof plane and would therefore not be a bulky addition or visually dominant feature on this elevation. Accordingly, it would not unduly affect the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants, with regards to outlook.

The Council refer to the 45 degree guide as set out in the Guildford Borough Council Residential Extensions and [name], with regard to the impact on outlook to the occupants of No 39. However, the SPD explains that the purpose of the 45 degree guide is to aid assessments regarding the impact on light, not outlook. Notwithstanding this, the appellant has provided evidence which demonstrates that the 45 degree line would only be marginally transgressed, and that there is another window which serves this bedroom on the front elevation. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable loss of light to the neighbouring occupants.

I conclude that the two-storey side extension would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 39, with particular reference to outlook. It would accord with policies H4 and D5 of the Guildford Local Plan: Development Management Policies (2023). These policies seek, amongst other things, to avoid having an unacceptable impact on the living environment of existing residential properties.

In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans as this provides certainty. A condition requiring the use of matching materials is necessary to maintain the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and local area.

In order to protect the privacy of the occupiers of neighbouring properties I have imposed a condition requiring the first-floor window on the side elevation to be fitted with obscured glazing, and to restrict the opening of this window.

For the above reasons, the proposal accords with the development plan. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed.