Appeal 6003416

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension at [site address] , [name], Dorset [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/HOU/2025/05384, subject to the following

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 drawing nos: 25379 [name] and Plans; 25379 [name] and Plans; and Location Plan.

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

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address] (No.170) with particular regard to outlook and loss of sunlight.

The proposed single storey extension would be set in slightly from the boundary and boundary wall with No.170. It would project 4m off the respective rear elevations. In light of the proposed eaves height at approximately 2.4m and ridge at approximately 3.4m, the proposed extension would be visible above the existing boundary wall when viewed from the rear patio doors to No.170 and when viewed from within its rear garden.

However, by reason of being set in from the boundary, limited projection above the boundary wall, shallow pitched roof sloping away from No.170 with its ridge below first floor window level, and given existing planting within No. [site address] that extends above the boundary wall creating a sense of enclosure and limiting sunlight later in the day to the rear of No.170, the proposal would not result in an oppressive or overbearing effect on the occupiers of, or harm the outlook from, No.170. For the same reasons it would not result in a detrimental loss of sunlight. Furthermore, any loss of sunlight would be limited to later into the day.

I note reference by the occupiers of No.170 to the proposal breaching a 45-degree rule but I have not been provided with details of any such rule adopted by the Council. In any case, for the reasons given above, I do not find the proposal harmful.

I have had regard to the rear of No.170 being adjoined by the development comprising No.[address] that projects significantly along the eastern boundary at two-storey height. Nonetheless, for the reasons given above, the additional extent of projection from the proposed extension above the boundary wall would be limited with No.170 retaining its outlook to the south. As a result, I do not find that the proposal would have a harmful effect with regard to a combined overbearing, oppressive or tunnelling effect.

It follows that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address] with particular regard to outlook and loss of sunlight. As such, it complies with Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1 – [name] 2014. Amongst other things, this seeks to achieve development of a high quality that is compatible with or improves its surroundings with regard to relationships to nearby properties.

My attention has been drawn to the refusal of an application for a single storey rear extension to No.168 in 20131 but in the absence of substantive details in relation to this, I cannot be sure that it is directly comparable. Furthermore, I must consider the current proposal on its merits.

I have noted the comments from the occupiers of No.170 with regard to the age of their property, shallow foundations, and related request for a [name] to be issued prior to any works. However, as this matter is covered by separate legal rights, it is not determinative in relation to the appeal before me.

I have had regard to the suggested conditions put forward by the Council and to the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework in relation to conditions. In addition to the standard time condition, a condition is necessary to confirm the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

A condition is also necessary to ensure that materials match those of the existing dwelling in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.