Appeal 6004475

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single-storey rear side extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 252587, subject to the following

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 [name] ksd/25/33/01, ksd/25/33/02, ksd/25/33/03, ksd/25/33/04, ksd/25/33/05 and ksd/25/33/06.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on [name] ksd/25/33/06.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address] with regard to outlook.

The appeal property is a self-contained flat within a three-storey building. To the east of the appeal property, No 16 is an end-of-terrace dwelling, separated by boundary fencing of approximately 2m in height. Two side windows at No 16’s rear projection face directly toward the appeal property, and are close to the boundary. The view from the side-facing windows of No 16 is therefore of a narrow space enclosed by tall boundary treatments, and the existing outlook is therefore significantly restricted.

In relation to rear extensions, the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2010) (the SPD) states that it is generally inappropriate to square off a property by infilling an ‘L-shaped’ plot, as this would create a ‘tunnel effect’ for neighbouring occupiers and be overbearing. The SPD also advises that the height of single-storey rear extensions should be kept as low as possible at the boundary to avoid unacceptable impacts on neighbours.

The proposed single-storey extension would infill the majority of the side space between the boundary fencing and the existing projection of the appeal property. However, it would extend only as far as the rear wall of the existing projection and would not project beyond the rear elevation of No 16. The proposed extension would therefore be modest in scale.

Furthermore, a setback of approximately 1.2m would be retained in the form of a lightwell and would provide separation from the bay window of No 16.

The proposed extension would have a height of approximately 2.7m, and would not be higher than the existing flat roof. It would therefore be as low as practicable in accordance with the SPD.

The proposed development would be close to the shared boundary with No 16. However, due to its modest length and height, and the provision of the lightwell which would provide a degree of visual relief, the change in outlook from No 16’s side-facing windows would be modest. The proposed extension would not result in a ‘tunnel effect’, an unacceptable sense of enclosure, or any overbearing impact, and would generally accord with the design objectives of the SPD.

For the reasons set out above, while the proposed extension would inevitably be visible from No 16 and would result in some change to outlook, it would not be of such a scale or form as to result in a harmful overbearing or enclosing effect for the occupiers of No 16.

Overall, the proposal would maintain the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of No 16, with regard to outlook. It would therefore comply with Policies 53 and 57 of the [site address] Local Plan Part 1: Shaping the Borough 2020- 2035 (adopted in 2024), which, amongst other considerations, seek to ensure that development responds appropriately to its context in terms of scale, height and massing, and respects the amenity of neighbours by avoiding harmful impacts arising from enclosure and loss of outlook.

The Council contends that the appellant has not submitted supporting technical evidence in respect of daylight and sunlight. However, these matters did not form the reasons for refusal, and no conflict with development plan policies has been identified in this regard. Given the minor scale of the development and the remaining separation distance between the properties, there is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that it would result in unacceptable impacts on daylight or sunlight for the neighbours. As such, it would not be reasonable or proportionate to require submission of such evidence.

The Council also expresses concern regarding the size, layout and positioning of the proposed shower room. However, I have not been directed to any specific policy requirements or space standards that would indicate harm in this respect, and I therefore find no reason to withhold permission on this basis.

In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the tests within the National Planning Policy Framework, the Planning Practice Guidance, and relevant statute.

To provide certainty, conditions specifying the time for commencement and compliance with the approved plans have been imposed. A further condition requiring external materials used on the construction of the proposed extension to match those shown on the approved plan has also been imposed. This is necessary to preserve the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would accord with the development plan when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.