Appeal 6004744

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the variation of condition 1 of planning permission DC/25/70800 (Proposed two storey front and single storey front/side/rear extensions, rear gable window, external cladding/render and outbuilding in rear garden) to extend the width of the ground floor side extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/71198, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appellant seeks to carry out extensions and alterations to the appeal property of a different design to that approved, specifically to increase the width of the ground floor single storey front study room extension.

The main issue is the effect of the revised design upon the living conditions of occupiers of the neighbouring property at No.11 [site address] with particular regard to daylighting.

The appeal property, No. [site address] [site address] (No. [site address] ), is one half of a substantial pair of semi-detached properties built in the 20th century. The property has previously been subject to a number of alterations and extensions to its front, rear and side elevations, which include a single storey glazed wall and roof conservatory to its front elevation, immediately north of its primary entrance. This conservatory is adjacent to but separated by several metres from, the property’s boundary with a two-storey detached dwelling at No.11 [site address] (No.11) to its north. This boundary is defined by a solid timber panel fence of around 1.8m in height, though the top quarter of the fence is finished in a trellis system.

No. [site address] received planning approval1 for further extensions and alterations, including the erection of an outbuilding in its rear garden. Subsequent to this approval, an appeal was submitted seeking to amend the design of the pitched and tiled roof single storey study extension which replaced the original conservatory, moving the northern side wall closer to the northern boundary of the property, but retaining around 1.8m between the wall and the northern boundary. The eaves level of the study extension has been significantly reduced in height, being little higher than the height of a standard external door height at its eaves.

The property at No.11 has a ground floor window, noted by the Council as serving a dining room, roughly opposite the mid-point of the side wall of the proposed study extension at No. [site address] . Adjoining the study extension to its east and south are existing two-storey sections of the appeal property. To the south, as part of the recent planning approval, a new two-storey gabled section has been approved and was under construction at my visit. This new two-storey gable would sit in line with the western elevation of the study extension, around 1m further west than the existing front gable, and with a pitched tiled roof.

Having examined the submitted drawings, the appeal property and the surrounding dwellings at my visit, I find that due to the reduced height of the eaves on the proposed study extension, coupled to the separation distance between its northern elevation and the shared boundary with No.11, the proposal would be likely to have little effect on the amount of daylighting experienced by the occupants of No.11 using the dining room.

Principally, I find the height and position of the approved two-storey extension to the south of the study extension, together with the existing two-storey elements of No. [site address] , will have more controlling effect on the level of daylighting experienced by occupants of No.11 using their dining room, than from the proposed study room extension. Indeed, the study room extension itself is likely to remain in the shadow of No. [site address] ’s two-storey accommodation for much of the first half of the day, only starting to emerge after around 1:00pm.

In the afternoon and latter part of the day, the restricted eaves height of the proposed study extension, coupled to its separation distance from the boundary with No.11, will likely result in any shadow effects falling on the separating boundary fence, which, owing to its’ own height, is more likely to restrict levels of daylighting to the dining room of No.11. 1 DC/25/70800

Accordingly, for the above reasons I conclude that the appeal proposal would not represent poor design or be unsympathetic in relation to neighbouring amenities. It follows therefore that I find it would not be contrary to Policies CSP4 and ENV3 of the Black County Core Strategy (2011), Policy SAD EOS [site address] of the Site Allocations and Delivery Development Plan Document (2012), or with the [name] (1024), nor with the National Planning Policy Framework, which require, among other things, that development will function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development.

By allowing this appeal a new planning permission is created. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) makes clear that decision notices for the grant of planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, should also restate the conditions imposed on the earlier permission that continue to have effect. I have, therefore, re-imposed all those conditions that I consider relevant and in accordance with the Framework and the PPG.

In addition to the standard time limit for implementation, in the interests of certainty, I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans. A materials condition and a condition controlling the timescale for completion of render works, are necessary in the interest of visual amenity.

Conditions controlling the installation of obscure glazing, and the direction of external lighting are required in the interest of protecting the amenity of neighbouring residents. A condition controlling the use of the outbuilding is necessary in the interest of highway safety and compatibility with neighbouring development.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would accord with the development plan, when read as a whole, and that there are no material considerations, including policies in the Framework, that would justify determining other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.

I will therefore allow the appeal and grant a new planning permission, restating those undisputed conditions that are still subsisting and capable of taking effect.