Appeal 6004556

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for [name] and [name] and window improvements at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 25/01702/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: OS based Location Plan; [name]. Series HG01-THO-V1-ZZ-A-: Plan Nos. 000-PO2-00 Proposed Block Plan; 001-P02 01 [name]; 002-P02 02 [name]; 003-P02 03 [name]; 004-PO2 04 [name].

The main issue is the effect of the proposed first floor extension on the living conditions for the occupiers of No. [address] as regards outlook.

The appeal property is linked to No. 7 by means of a garage, utility room and sitting room at ground floor level and a bedroom on the first floor. At present, the bedroom is recessed and sits well behind the extent of side wall of No. 7, whilst the ground floor sitting room projects only slightly beyond the rear wall of this neighbouring dwelling.

The appeal scheme would follow the existing pattern of the first floor projecting from the original dwelling to a lesser extent than the ground floor. Because of the height of the boundary fence there would be little if any impact on the outlook from Appeal Decision Ref, 6004556 No. 7 as a result of the proposed ground floor extension. Indeed, this addition is not included in the Council’s reason for refusal.

Although with the first floor extension extending 1.68m beyond the rear elevation of No. 7 there would be some impact, I note that submitted Drawing 03 shows the extension as not intersecting the 25-degree line from the middle of the nearest bedroom window of that property. Whilst this dimension is more useful in an assessment of daylight, it is nonetheless indicative of the acceptability of the relationship between proposed and existing built form.

I have taken into account the objection to the scheme from the occupier of No. 7 and note that a comment is made as to the first floor extension being ‘too long and detrimental to the character and health of the houses’. However, as indicated above I do not consider that a dimension of approximately 1.7m falls within this description. Most of the other matters raised will be addressed by the required compliance with the Building Regulations.

On balance, I take the view that the proposed projection would not be overbearing and that the living conditions for the occupiers of No. 7 in respect of outlook would not be unacceptably harmed by the proposed first floor extension. Accordingly, there would be no conflict with saved Policy GEN1 of the Hart Local Plan (Replacement) 2006; Policy NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy and Sites) 2032 and Government policy in the National Planning Policy Framework 2024.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal is allowed. A condition requiring matching external materials will maintain visual amenity. A condition requiring the extension to be built in accordance with the approved plans is needed for the avoidance of doubt and is in the interests of proper planning.