Appeal 6004862

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey infill rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/01253/FUL, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 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, drawings: BL/DRG/4017/01, 02A, 03 and 04.

I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers at [address], in terms of its potential to appear overbearing and result in a sense of enclosure, loss of daylight, and loss of outlook.

The appeal property, [site address] (No 43) is a mid-terrace two-storey house in a relatedly high-density residential street. The properties are stepped to reflect the topography of the area. Accordingly, No 43 is marginally higher than No

The existing boundary between No’s 42 and 43 is formed by a high close boarded fence.

As is typical of the properties in the street No’s 42 and 43 have two-storey rear outshoots which are set in from the common boundary between the two houses to provide access to each of their relatively long rear gardens.

Unusually both houses have half bay windows at ground floor level projecting from their rear walls that are canted so as to look towards their common boundaries with each other. No 42 also has two ground floor windows in the side wall of the outshot facing No 43.

The appellant proposes extending their rear outshot at ground floor level up to the boundary of No 42 to enlarge the existing ground floor kitchen. The proposed narrow single storey extension would then have a mono-pitched roof. The roof would slope up and away from the new boundary wall, where it would be 2.600 metres high, towards the existing flank wall of the first floor bathroom. Natural light would be provided to the enlarged kitchen by way of three rooflights set in the plane of the new mono pitched roof.

The proposed rear extension would, as the existing outshot, project 3.620 metres or so beyond the rear walls of the main houses of No’s 42 and 43. However, it would not extend as far as the conservatory addition at the rear of the outshot to No 42.

Given that No 43 is located to the north of No 42 I do not consider that the replacement of the existing fence with a slightly higher masonry wall would cause any significant loss of sunlight. Further as the rear outshot at No 42 is set well in from the boundary I do not believe that if the proposed addition, despite its additional height of the new wall over that of the existing boundary fence, would result in a significant loss of daylight to any of the rooms served by windows looking into the retained gap between the rear outshot and the proposed extension at No 43.

The proposed new flank wall would only be about 0.600 metres or so higher than a typical boundary fence between dwellings. I am therefore not persuaded that this small increase in height would, in this higher density urban context, result in the addition appearing overbearing or cause such a significant increase in the either a sense of enclosure or loss of outlook as to cause harm to residential living

I therefore conclude in respect of the main issue that the proposed extension would not cause harm to the living conditions to the residential occupiers of No 42 in respect of appearing overbearing, an increased sense of enclosure, loss of daylight or loss of outlook. It would therefore accord with the objectives of Policies M2 and M1 of The Dartford Plan - Dartford Borough’s Local Plan to 2037 ([name]

as they seek to, amongst other things, protect residential living conditions.

To ensure a high quality development, I shall include a condition about the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building.

In the interests of certainty, I shall impose a condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.