Appeal 6005116

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular reference to outlook and light.

The appeal property is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling, attached to [address]. A ground floor structure to the rear of the dwelling also links it to [address], a semi-detached dwelling which is sited perpendicular to the appeal property. No 7 has been extended including by way of a two storey side extension and a single storey rear extension.

The siting of [address] relative to the appeal property results in the area to the rear of both dwellings having a strong enclosed feel. This is compounded by the limited space between the properties and the narrow gardens to the rear.

The proposed single storey rear extension would be sited adjacent to an existing extension to the rear of [address] and would not have any significant effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of that dwelling. Furthermore, the proposed two storey extension would be set in from the boundary with No 4 a sufficient distance to ensure that it would not have any significant impact on No 4 in terms of loss of outlook or light.

There are however first floor windows on the original rear wall of [address], the closest of which is positioned above the existing ground floor linking element. The proposed two storey extension would be set slightly in from the main flank wall of the appeal property and the closest part of it would have a chamfered design to follow the general alignment of the boundary at this point.

The appeal proposal would add further built form and bulk at two storey level in close proximity to the boundary with [address] and from the plans before me, would significantly breach the 45 degree angle, in plan form, contrary to the advice set out in the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2018) (SPD). Whilst the effect of the extension would be reduced by the chamfered design, it would nonetheless have a considerable depth of 2.7m and, in the absence of further technical evidence in terms of a Daylight and [name], I cannot be sure that the proposal would not reduce the amount of daylight and sunlight received by the closest windows on the rear elevation of No 7 to a harmful degree.

Even more significantly, the proposed extension would further add to the existing sense of enclosure to the rear of the appeal property and [address]. This sense of enclosure would be particularly apparent from the closest first floor window on the rear elevation of No 7 where due to a combination of the height, depth and proximity of the extension, it would be overbearing and harmful to the outlook from that window. This would be likely to result in harm to the living conditions of the occupants of that property.

Whilst [address] has an existing ground floor rear extension, given its lower height, this extension is not harmful to the outlook of the occupants of the appeal property and is not comparable to the appeal scheme.

The appellant refers to previous proposal at the appeal property which included a single storey rear extension with dormer over (LPA ref. 22/P/00194) which was approved by the Council and therefore claims that the Council has dealt with the proposals inconsistently. However, the rear dormer was shown to have a limited depth of 0.85m and is not comparable with the appeal proposal in terms of its design or effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address].

A two-storey rear extension at [address] approved under LPA ref. 25/P/00149 is also referred to by the appellant. However, this extension was shown to have a depth of 1.86m, considerably less than that of the appeal proposal and therefore is not directly comparable.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook and light. It would be contrary to Policies H4, D4 and D5 of the Guildford Borough Council: Development Management Policies 2023, the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework 2024. Collectively and amongst other things, these policies seek high quality design and for development proposals to avoid having an unacceptable impact on occupiers of existing properties, including in terms of visual dominance and overbearing effects of a development and access to sunlight and daylight.

The appeal site is within Onslow Village Conservation Area (CA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area. The Council did not raise concern regarding the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including on the CA. From the information before me I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s finding on this issue.

The appellant refers at length to discussions and correspondence with the Council that took place during the course of the application. Whilst no doubt frustrating, the length of time taken to reach a decision and the manner in which the application was handled by the Council are not matters which I can take into account in the determination of the appeal.

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