Appeal 6004052

The appeal is dismissed.

The evidence submitted by the appellant states that the development has been completed. The works appear to have been constructed as shown on the plans before me, but for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans.

The Council has not raised any concerns regarding the proposed single storey rear extension, front extension or raised boundary wall. Based on the information before me, I have no reason to take a different view.

Therefore, the main issue is the effect of the proposed first floor rear extension on the living conditions of the occupiers at No [address], with regard to outlook and sunlight.

The appeal site is an end terrace dwelling in a predominantly residential area. Many houses in this row have two storey rear outriggers, with single storey extensions beyond, including the appeal dwelling and the adjoining property at No [address]. The neighbouring house has rear windows which face towards the appeal site. There are small rear amenity spaces alongside the extended properties.

The two-storey development projects significantly from the rear elevation to a depth of approximately 10.3m, directly adjacent to the rear outdoor space at No

Due to its significant height, length and position in relation to the neighbouring property, the proposed two storey extension is overbearing and dominates the outlook from the rear facing windows and rear amenity area of No 25.

The previous single storey extension would have affected the outlook from the neighbouring property to some extent. However, the larger height and mass of the two-storey addition, harmfully exacerbates the sense of enclosure to the rear amenity area and rooms at No 25.

Having regard to the size and orientation of the two-storey extension relative to the neighbouring property, it is likely that the development causes overshadowing over the rear windows and rear outdoor area at No 25 for at least part of sunny days. No daylight or sunlight report has been submitted and so I must rely on my own planning judgement regarding the impact. The reduced level of sunlight now received creates a dark and gloomy environment, which has an unacceptable impact on the occupants of the affected rooms and rear amenity space during the day.

It is stated that the extension will create additional space, which is needed for a large family who cannot move house. However, it has not been demonstrated that additional accommodation could not be provided in a manner which would not unduly harm neighbouring living conditions.

I note that letters from neighbours, including the current occupiers of No 25, have been provided by the appellant. Whilst they do not object to the proposal, I have not been persuaded to conclude differently. Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires developments to create places with a high standard of amenity for both existing and future users.

For the reasons highlighted above, I conclude that the proposal harms the living conditions of the occupiers at No [address], with regard to outlook and sunlight. It conflicts with Policy JP-P1 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document for Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan 2022-2039 (2024). Amongst other things, this policy seeks to ensure a high level of amenity.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.