Appeal 6004205

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a part single storey, part two storey rear extension together with new windows in the side elevation at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, 25/P/01402, subject to the following conditions: 1 The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: - 4089-P11. 3 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. 4 The first-floor windows in the side elevation of the extension hereby approved shall be glazed with obscured glass and shall be non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed and shall be maintained as such at all times.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address], with particular regard to overbearing impact.

The semi-detached property is located at a curve in the road, and the plot has a splayed form narrowing to the rear. As such, the alignment of the house with the neighbouring property to the west, No.78, is at a slight angle. Both houses are offset from the shared boundary, and the proposed extension will follow the existing alignment. The overall depth of the building would not be increased, but the proposal would effectively infill the area alongside the existing outrigger and wrap around to the rear, replacing the existing single-storey element.

The proposed development would create a rectangular form and bring more of the building closer to the shared boundary. The rear section would be the nearest, but this would still be offset by approximately 1m, and this part of the extension would be single-storey with a mono-pitched roof.

The proposed first-floor element is designed with a chamfered corner and sits within a 45-degree line taken from the neighbour’s window, as set out in the Council’s Residential Extensions and [name] (2018). The guidance explains that such an extension, within the 45-degree line, ensures that adequate levels of daylight can be maintained, overshadowing is minimised, and is likely to be acceptable.

The Council does not dispute the relationship with the 45-degree line but considers that the development would be visually intrusive and make reference to overshadowing in their officer’s report. The side elevation of the appeal property would have a more prominent visual presence. However, at 3m, the first-floor projection would only be visible in oblique views from the rear windows of No.78, with its own adjacent outrigger dominating the outlook.

The rear garden to No.78 is south-facing, thereby any overshadowing from No.76, to the east, would be limited to the early morning. The windows in the side elevation of No. [address]-boarded boundary fencing, from which the extension is set back, and, from the provided plans, these windows serve non-habitable rooms (bathroom, utility, and kitchen). The first-floor windows proposed in the side elevation of the extension are to serve bathroom facilities, and the use of obscure glazing could be appropriately conditioned.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other extensions to properties in the vicinity, including a scheme similar to this proposal which has been approved to No.68. It was evident from my site visit that several of the properties along [address] have been extended, with the rear form altered and massing increased including infilling the area to the side of the outrigger and increased depth. While each proposal is to be considered on its own merits, there is a regularity to the pattern of development along this section of [address].

Therefore, whilst there would be a reduction in separation and acknowledging that the neighbouring property is on slightly lower ground, in conclusion, I do not find that the visual presence of the proposed extension would be overly intrusive to have an overbearing impact.

Accordingly, I find that the proposed development would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.78. Thus, the proposal would accord with policies H4, D4 and D5 of the Guildford Borough Council Local Plan Development Management Policies (LPDMP) 2023, which relate to the design of developments and amongst other things seek to ensure that extensions have no unacceptable impact on the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of adjacent buildings in terms of privacy and access to sunlight and daylight.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, in the interests of certainty, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

A condition is also necessary for the materials to match those used on the existing dwelling to maintain the character and appearance of the area, and as referenced above, to protect privacy, obscure glazing to the first-floor windows in the side elevation is to be secured.

For the reasons set out, the proposed extension would have an acceptable relationship with the neighbouring property, and therefore, the appeal is allowed.