Appeal 6004159

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for 2 storey extension between garage and front of house at [site address] , Thornton, Bradford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03563/HOU, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three 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 1:1250; Proposed Site Plan Drawing No. 0101 Rev P03; [name]. 0400 Rev P03; [name]. 0100 Rev P03.

The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of existing occupiers of the host property and the occupiers of No [address] (No 6) and No [address] (No 24) with particular regard to outlook, privacy and daylight.

The appeal site relates to [site address] which is a detached house with stone exterior and brown roof tiles. It is situated on a corner plot at the end of a cul-de-sac in a residential area. Its principal frontage is onto Oakhall Park to the north and its side elevation is towards [address] to the east.

To the front of the property is amenity space and a detached garage. Neighbouring property No 24 is located to the west and is detached from the appeal site. Another neighbouring property No 6 is located to the east of the site and is also detached from the appeal site.

The proposed development seeks planning permission for a two-storey front extension, which would project outward from the front elevation of the property to connect with the existing garage. It would therefore fill the gap between the garage and the main dwelling.

The proposed extension would sit approximately 6.4 metres and 5 metres from the front habitable windows of No 24 and No 6 respectively. The Council explain that such distances mean that the two-storey enlargement would exceed the 45-degree line from these windows, resulting in a loss of outlook and reduction in daylight to the habitable rooms of the neighbouring dwellings.

Encroachment of the 45-degree line does not however automatically mean that the proposals would result in a loss of outlook and reduction in daylight to the habitable rooms of the neighbouring properties. The effect of the proposed extension must be assessed having regard to the context, orientation of the site and existing built form including positioning of windows.

The proposed extension would project to the north of the host property and to the north of the neighbouring properties windows at No 24 and No 6. In terms of No 24, the front elevation windows face out over its own front garden area. While the proposed extension would be visible, views would be at an angle given the relationship that exists and separation distance. Figure 3 provided by the appellant in their Statement of Case demonstrates the angled nature of the sightlines from the nearest window. Such sightlines are onto the garage area which already exists at the appeal site. I am therefore sufficiently persuaded that any intersection would be negligible and would not result in a meaningful change to the relationship between the buildings or the level of enclosure experienced at the affected windows.

Turning to No 6, this property already has an attached front addition in the form of a garage which restricts views from some of the front elevation facing windows. The proposed extension would be visible from No. 6 particularly the first-floor window closest to the appeal site. However, views would still be angled where outlook would not be so severely restricted. Figure 3 provided by the appellant shows the sightlines from the nearest first floor window of No 6 which demonstrates the nature of the angled views onto the two-storey element. The proposal would intersect the notional 45-degree line, but this would not be significant, and I find this relationship to be acceptable in such a residential setting where angled relationships and intervisibility is characteristic.

I note the Council’s concerns regarding mutual overlooking given the proximity of the proposed first-floor bedroom windows facing No 6 but given the relationship that would exist and orientation of windows to one another, no direct overlooking would take place. Sightlines would be sufficiently angled whereby the extent of any mutual overlooking would be limited and not harmful. I do not find this relationship to be unreasonable/uncommon in a residential setting.

In coming to these findings, I have had due regard to the proximity of the proposed development to the boundary, but this would not alter my findings in relation to the main issue in this case when considering the particular context of this site and the proposals.

Having regard to daylight matters, the proposal would project to the north of the property which means that the scope for significant reduction in daylight is limited. Given the relationship that exists between the properties and the orientation of the proposed extension to windows, I am not convinced that the additional massing would result in a significant reduction in daylight to the affected habitable rooms or that those rooms would fall below an acceptable standard of amenity as a consequence.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not unacceptably affect the living conditions of the existing occupiers of the host property and the occupiers of No 24 and No 6 with particular regard to outlook, privacy and daylight. It would therefore accord with Policies DS1, DS3 and DS5 of the [name], 2017 which together, amongst other matters, requires development proposals to not harm the amenity of existing or prospective users and residents. For the same reasons, the proposed development would also accord with the aims of the Householder Supplementary Planning Document which amongst other aims, seeks to protect residential amenity of neighbours.

Conditions relating to the standard time for commencement of development and a plans condition are necessary in the interests of certainty. A condition relating to materials is also required in the interests of the satisfactory appearance of the development.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to the development plan as a whole, the appeal is allowed, and planning permission is given subject to the attached conditions.