Appeal 6004261

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for [name] and Alterations at [site address] , [site address] , Staffordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/00295, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 225-15-02E; 225-15-03E; 225-15-04E.

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 2m high boundary fence shall be completed in accordance with the approved details on drawing no. 225-15-04E, before the rear extensions are brought into use.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development upon: • the living conditions of occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook and privacy; and, • the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site relates to a 2-storey end of terraced house. It sits slightly forward of the neighbouring semi-detached property, No 266, and has a single storey side extension and a 2-storey rear projecting wing with a single storey utility room and Appeal Decision: 6004261 storerooms attached to the back of it. The rear wings extend beyond the rear building line of No 266. There is a gap between the houses which are angled slightly away from each other and there is a low blockwork boundary wall between them. There is a slight difference in site levels, with No 266 sitting lower than the appeal property.

The proposal would widen the side and rear of the house, replacing the single storey side extension with a 2-storey side extension and replacing the rear wings with a substantially wider ground floor and first floor wing although the latter would be set in above the ground floor extension.

Windows on the side wall of the existing rear wing overlook No 266’s rear garden with oblique views across towards its rear windows. Consequently, the privacy of neighbouring occupiers is already affected. The proposed development would bring side windows closer to the neighbouring house and garden. The proposed 2m high boundary fence would provide some mitigation, preventing views from the ground floor windows towards No 266. Also, whereas there is currently a first floor bedroom window on the side elevation of the existing wing which overlooks No 266, the only first floor window on the replacement wing would be an obscured glazed bathroom window. These changes would reduce overlooking and thus improve the neighbour’s privacy.

Another bedroom window on the first floor of the main part of the appeal property is positioned on the flank wall facing towards No 266. The proposed extensions would bring the flank walls closer and the bedroom window would be replaced by a bow window which would project from the wall. Consequently, the proposed bedroom window would be over 2m closer to the neighbouring house than the existing window. However, it would face directly towards the side wall and over the top of the ground floor kitchen extension on No 266 which have no side windows, so there would be no overlooking into the neighbour’s house. There would be oblique views towards No 266’s garden but, overall, I consider the potential for overlooking would not be significantly greater than is currently the case. Furthermore, the plans indicate that the window would be obscured glazed up to 1.7m above the finished floor level.

The East Staffordshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2008) (DG) states that the Council will check that new development over single storey height would not cross a line taken at 45 degrees from the midpoint of the nearest window of a neighbouring building, whilst noting that this is not a hard and fast rule. The Council Officer’s report also refers to the 45-degree check with reference to the Council’s Separation Distances and Amenity Supplementary Planning Document (2024). That guidance states that, whilst the check should be applied carefully, each application should be considered on its own merits acknowledging that the distance between properties and intervening features, such as boundary walls, may lessen the effect on neighbour’s outlook and light.

According to the appellants plans, the ground floor of the extension would project beyond a 45-degree line taken from No 266’s kitchen window but the first floor which would be set in would not. However, the first floor extension would project beyond a 45-degree line taken from the first floor bedroom window on No 266.

There is a gap between the 2 properties which, because No 266 is angled away from the appeal property, increases as they extend back. Although the proposed Appeal Decision: 6004261 extensions would bring the side walls of the neighbouring houses significantly closer, and project beyond the SPG guidelines, the proposed 2m high boundary fence would lessen the impact to some degree, as acknowledged by the Council. Furthermore, the slight angle of No 266’s windows away from the rear of the appeal property, combined with the distance between them and the side walls on the proposed development, would be enough that there would be uninterrupted views of the rear garden. The appeal development would be sufficiently peripheral from these views and from within the neighbour’s garden that despite the differences in ground levels it would not have an excessively overbearing impact or create a sense of enclosure such that it would harm the living conditions of occupiers of No 266.

Overall, I conclude on this main issue that the proposed development would not conflict with Policies SP1, SP24, DP1 and DP3 of the East Staffordshire Local Plan (2015) (LP), the objectives of the DG, Policy A8 of the Anglesey Neighbourhood Plan (2016) (NP) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) which seek to protect the amenity of occupiers of residential properties nearby.

[address] contains a mix of semi-detached and terraced houses. Most of those of a similar age to the appeal property, including within the same terrace, have ground floor bay windows on their front elevation. Whilst second floor bow and bay windows are not common within the street scene, I noted during my site visit that No 260 has a second storey bow window above its side entrance and No 238, on the junction of [address] and [address], has bay windows on its side elevation which fronts on to [address]. In both cases they are more visually prominent than the appeal proposal and do not harm the appearance of their host properties or the wider street scene.

The gap between the appeal property and No 266 allows views of the side wall of the appeal property when approaching from the south, but only from within a short distance of the appeal site. The proposed bow window would therefore be visible from the street, but views of it would be fleeting for any cars and pedestrians passing the site and, in the context of the other examples cited above, would neither harm the host property or the wider street scene.

Overall, I conclude on this main issue that the proposed development would not, therefore, conflict with Policies SP1, SP24, DP1 and DP3 of the LP, the DG, Policy A8 of the NP and the Framework which require high quality development which responds to the context of the surrounding area.

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

I have attached the standard time limit condition and a plans condition as this provides certainty. I have also added a condition concerning materials to ensure a satisfactory appearance and a condition requiring the boundary fence to be completed before the development is occupied to protect neighbours living