Appeal 6003295

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Construction of a single storey ground floor rear extension together with part first floor extension. Also relocation of front entrance door to external wall at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/2341, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan, PP-01; PP-02; PP-03; PP-04; PP-05; PP-06; PP-07; PP-08; PP-09 and PP-10.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular reference to daylight and sunlight.

The Council’s objection to the appeal scheme is in relation to the proposed single storey rear extension which they consider would result in a harmful loss of daylight / sunlight to a ground floor rear window on the rear elevation of the adjacent dwelling, [address], resulting in a loss of amenity to the occupiers of that dwelling.

The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling which is immediately to the south of [address]. No 214 has an existing single storey side / rear extension, with a habitable room window on its rear elevation and a glazed door on the side. There is also a conservatory extension to the rear of No.214 which is sited away from the boundary with the appeal site.

The proposed single storey extension would have a depth of 3 metres and a height of about 3.1m. The Elmbridge Design Code Supplementary Planning Guidance (2024) (SPD) advises that extensions should be less than an angle of 45-degree from the edge of the nearest adjoining neighbour’s habitable rooms window. The ’45-degree’ angle test is applied to single storey extensions which are closer than 8 metres along that sight line from the neighbour’s window.

The proposed extension would intersect with the 45-degree angle taken from the edge of the nearest ground floor window on the rear of No 214. Given the positioning of the proposed extension on the southern side of No 214, it would clearly have the potential to result in a loss of light.

However, the 45-degree angle from the edge of the nearest window on the rear of No 214 is already breached by the existing single storey garage wall of the appeal property which is positioned directly on the boundary with No 214 and extends beyond its rear elevation. The boundary wall would be retained and is significantly higher than the remainder of the 1.8m high boundary fence which encloses the remainder of the side boundary.

The proposed extension would be set in from the shared boundary with No 214 by just over a metre. As a matter of judgment, the proposed extension with its flat roof design, would not result in any significant additional impact on the amount of daylight and sunlight received by the closest window on the rear elevation of No 214 or the opening on the side of that property, over and above that which already occurs as a result of its proximity to the existing high garage wall and the two storey flank elevation of the appeal property beyond.

Furthermore, given the 3m height of the proposed extension and its set in from the shared boundary, any reduction in light to the large rear garden of No 214 would be minimal and unlikely to have a significant effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of that property. Furthermore, there are a line of conifers in the garden of No [address] to its southern boundary which already overshadow part of its garden at certain times of the day.

Whilst the proposal would not technically comply with all aspects of the SPD, I nonetheless conclude that it would not have a significantly harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular reference to daylight and sunlight. It would therefore comply with Policy DM2 of the Development Management Plan 2015 which seeks to protect the amenity of adjoining users by ensuring that development proposals are designed to provide adequate daylight and sunlight and paragraph 135 (f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) which seeks to protect the amenity of existing and future users.

In addition to the standard implementation condition, the approved plans condition is imposed for certainty and a condition controlling the use of materials is necessary to protect the character and appearance of the dwelling and the local area.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.