Appeal 6004484

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] in respect of received light.

The appeal building is the end property of a short terrace of 4 two storey houses. Dwellings along [address] have a similar form, design and use of materials. There is a general absence of rear extensions at other houses in this part of [address].

The proposed side extension would be set back from the front elevation of the building. It would be attached to a rear extension which would project for around 3.3 metres, with a gap of around 0.25 metres alongside the rear side boundary with [address]. Although the appellant has referred to the need to avoid a main drain, no detailed evidence has been submitted to show its location or to explain why this is a matter that cannot be overcome in some way.

Number 59 is located approximately to the north-west of the appeal building. The boundary with [address] is marked by a larch lap style wooden fence and a red brick wall. This would already restrict some received daylight and sunlight to the relatively close, adjacent kitchen rear window, in that property and also to the concrete hardstanding at the rear of the property.

However, I consider that the occupants of number 59 would still experience significant additional overshadowing from the proposed rear extension because of its proximity, degree of projection from the rear elevation of the building, and from the scale and roof height of the extension. I note that 59 is mid-terrace and therefore has no side windows to provide any additional source of natural lighting. It is also smaller in scale and has a narrower rear garden. These factors would serve to make any overshadowing of the rear kitchen window more significant in effect.

The appellant submits that an extension to the rear at 3 metres in depth could be built under permitted development rights as a fall-back position. Plans have been submitted to demonstrate the degree of overshadowing which would result from the proposed rear extension and to illustrate that the effect of overshadowing on [address] would be similar from a 3 metre deep extension because of the 250mm set-back from the property boundary. However, the appeal proposal includes that the side extension would be attached to the proposed rear extension, although not joined internally, and therefore extending it beyond the width of the house.

I find that the proposed rear extension would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbours at [address] in respect of loss of daylight and sunlight. It would therefore conflict with guidance in the Council’s supplementary planning document which advises that proposals should not unduly affect neighbouring amenity, with particular regard to overshadowing and loss of light. It would also fail to comply with policies D1 and D11 of the City of York supplementary planning document which seek to protect the amenity of neighbours, including from overshadowing effects.

I acknowledge the appellant’s desire to provide additional living space. However, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole and should be dismissed.