Appeal 6003452

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for part two-storey and part single-storey rear extension to provide disabled accommodation on the ground floor at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/03044/HOU, 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 drawings: Location Plan; Proposed Block Plan (OCT25-223SR-03); [name] & Elevations (OCT25-223SR-03).

The external materials of the extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The proposal comprises both a single-storey and a two-storey rear extension. However, the Council’s objection relates solely to the impact of the single-storey rear element on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address]. My assessment therefore focuses on that part of the scheme.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed single-storey rear extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to light and outlook.

The appeal property forms part of a terrace of two-storey dwellings with generous south-facing rear gardens enclosed by timber fencing. No 225 lies immediately to the east and contains a large rear bay window at ground floor which provides the principal outlook to its garden.

Policy DMD11 of the Enfield Development Management Document 2014 (DMD) establishes a depth limit of 3 metres for single-storey rear extensions and expects such extensions not to exceed a 45-degree line taken from the midpoint of the nearest original ground-floor rear window of an adjoining property. The proposed single-storey extension would project approximately 5 metres and the Council indicates that it would breach the 45-degree line. Thus, there is a technical conflict with the policy.

However, the 45-degree guideline is a simplified tool and not a substitute for a full assessment of actual impacts. The key question is whether the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 225 in this specific context. Evidence provided by the appellant indicates that the Council has followed a similar approach for comparable proposals elsewhere, which supports the need to consider the specific circumstances of the site and proposal rather than rely solely on the numerical test.

The extension would be visible from the bay window of No 225 and would alter the outlook along the boundary. Even so, its height would be modest with a roof design that slopes away from the boundary. The width of the bay window and the depth of the garden provide a relatively deep and wide field of view, such that the extension would not appear overbearing or unduly dominant. Concerns raised about cumulative enclosure with the outbuilding at the end of the garden are not supported by the physical arrangement on site. The flat-roofed outbuilding is modestly sized and sufficiently distant so as not to combine visually with the proposed extension along the boundary.

Furthermore, as the extension would lie to the west of No 225, any overshadowing would occur mainly later in the afternoon. For most of the day, the bay window and patio area would continue to receive unobstructed sunlight. Even during the late afternoon, the garden depth and modest height of the extension would ensure that any loss of light would be limited in extent and duration.

Taking all these factors into account, I conclude that the single-storey rear extension would not materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 225 with respect to outlook or light. Although there is conflict with the numerical limits of Policy DMD11, the development would accord with its wider aims and with the National Planning Policy Framework’s (the Framework) objective of ensuring a high standard of amenity for existing users.

The Council also refers to Policy DMD37 and Core Policy 30 of the [name] (2010). However, these policies relate primarily to design quality and the character of the local area. The officer’s report confirms that the Council considered the development to be acceptable in this regard, and I agree. Accordingly, the scheme complies with these policies.

It is indicated that the extension is intended to provide disabled accommodation. [name] have found the scheme acceptable on its planning merits, I do not need to consider this matter further.

The Block Plan shows a slight step (approximately 250 mm) in the rear wall of No 225 compared to No 223. Having inspected the site, I am satisfied that this minor discrepancy does not materially affect the assessment or prevent implementation in accordance with the approved drawings.

In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the guidance in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. The standard time-limit and approved plans conditions are imposed to provide certainty. A materials condition is necessary to ensure a satisfactory finished appearance.

For the reasons given, the appeal should be allowed.