Appeal 6003267

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a two-storey side extension and single-storey rear extension following partial demolition at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/01261/FUL.

I saw during my site visit that the development has already been carried out and I have dealt with the appeal accordingly. This has had no bearing on my assessment of the merits of the appeal scheme.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal property is a detached, two-storey house with a mix of brick, tile hanging and rendered walls under a tiled pitched roof. It lies within an established suburban residential area within the City, west of [name].

[address] and neighbouring streets comprise linear layouts of street-facing large, detached dwellings with private rear gardens behind. There is a general uniformity of property age, height, materials and front building line and some shared design features such as large front-facing bay windows and front elevation tile hanging and porches.

Notwithstanding this, the houses are not identical and there a wide variety of adaptations of the above, as well as alterations and additions that have taken place to a number of properties.

The appeal property benefits from consent to convert the garage into living accommodation and build a first-floor extension over, and these works have been completed1.

The site also benefits from planning permission to erect a two-storey side extension and a single storey rear extension2 (the extant permission). Having regard to the Court of Appeal judgement3 on fallback positions, in considering proposals for new development, decision-makers should have regard to the fallback position of lawful development which has a real prospect of taking place in the alternative.

The Courts4 have held that the prospect of the fallback position does not have to be probable or even have a high chance of occurring; it has to be only more than a merely theoretical prospect. Moreover, the demonstration of a real prospect of a fallback scheme being implemented does not necessarily require a permission to have already been secured.

In this case, an extant permission exists for a scheme which is very similar in character to that of the appeal scheme. The permission does not expire until 4 June 2028 and, whilst the appeal scheme seeks to modify the design to enlarge the proposed additional living space, there is no cogent evidence before me to suggest that the extant scheme would not go ahead, should this appeal be dismissed.

As such, whilst the extant permission should not automatically guarantee planning permission for the appeal scheme, the fallback position is an important material consideration that carries significant weight for the purpose of my decision.

The infill two-storey element of the scheme, which measures approximately 6.6m in height and 0.8m wide, is of a modest size compared to the overall size of the property and would only result in a small increase in roof size being visible from the public realm. This element of the scheme remains unchanged from that of the extant permission and has already been considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of the area. Since there have been no material changes in circumstances since the grant of that permission, I am satisfied that this remains the case.

The design, materials and height of the rear flat-roofed single storey element of the appeal scheme, at approximately 2.83m, remain unaltered from that of the extant permission. However, the depth of the extension is increased by 1m beyond that of the extant scheme, from 6m to 7m. The appeal scheme also includes an increase in the width of the extension so that it projects approximately 0.65m beyond the east side wall of the main house.

The latter has a minimal impact upon the perceived mass of the property when 1 [name] 20/01199/FUL granted 30 October 2020 and [name] 22/00546/NMA granted 16 November 2022 2 [name] 25/00472/FUL granted 4 June 2025 3 [name] v Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council [2017] [name] 1314 4 Schneck v SSHCLG & [name] [2022] EWHC [address], due to its set-back, narrow and single storey nature. Moreover, the increased depth of the rear extension does not alter its degree of subservience to the main two-storey element of the property. Nor does it result in a disproportionate amount of rear garden being lost.

As such, and having regard to the enclosed nature of the rear garden site boundaries, I do not find that the appeal scheme adds a visually detrimental amount to the overall building scale, mass and bulk compared to that of the extant permission.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal scheme does not materially harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, the appeal scheme accords with [name] 7 and SDP 9 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review – [name] 2nd Revision (2015) (the Local Plan Review) in so much as these policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and they respect their surroundings in terms of, inter alia, scale, massing and visual impact.

This accords with Chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) which seeks to achieve well-designed places.

The two-storey element of the scheme was deemed not to harmfully impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjacent house at No.13 when granting the extant permission. The impact remains unaltered with the appeal scheme.

The Council’s Delegated report confirms that its objection specifically concerns the impact of the single storey extension on the outlook of the occupiers of No.13. The extra depth of the extension above that already approved is positioned immediately adjacent to a large outbuilding within the garden of No.13. As such, it does not result in material harm to the outlook of the occupiers of that property.

Neither do I find the outlook of the occupiers of No.9 to be materially harmed by the increased depth and proximity of the single storey extension to the side boundary of that property, due to the presence of a high solid brick wall along that boundary.

For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the appeal scheme does not materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties, with particular regard to outlook. As such, the appeal scheme accords with Local Plan Review Saved Policy SDP 9, in so much as this policy, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that development proposals respect their surroundings in terms of their impact upon surrounding land uses and local amenity.

This accords with Paragraph 135 of the Framework in so much that it seeks to ensure that developments will function well with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

I have considered the imposition of conditions in light of the tests set out in Paragraph 57 of the Framework and the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), as well as the conditions which were attached to the extant permission. Given that the development has already occurred, I do not consider that conditions setting a timescale for the commencement of the approved development, requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, or requiring matching materials to meet the requirements set out in the Framework. Accordingly, there is no requirement for any conditions.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should succeed, and that planning permission be granted.