Appeal 6005136

For the reasons that follow, the appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single-storey front and single-storey rear extension to form additional living accommodation at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, No P25/02676/HH, subject to the conditions set out in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Council. That application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The main issues in this case relate to the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, and its effect on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers having particular regard to light and outlook.

No [site address] forms one of a pair of semi-detached bungalow properties (Nos 5 and [address]), with a similar pairing located immediately to the north (Nos 7 and 8). Although their address is [address], the properties actually front onto [address], backing onto a footpath that runs along the rear of the properties, between [address] and [address]. The appeal property occupies a corner location, with elevations to [address] (to the front), [address] (to the side) and the footpath to the rear.

To the front, it is proposed to widen the existing flat-roofed porch. The existing flat roof would be continued across the extension, with the addition of two roof lights. The front door would be set within the front elevation, with a window to the side elevation. The proportions of the extension are modest and its design would not be incongruous in any way. Indeed, I saw that No 7 benefits from a very similar extension to the front, which sits well in the street scene. I find no harm in this regard, in terms of the established character and appearance of the area.

The extension to the rear, across the width of the property, would enlarge the existing kitchen and, together with revisions to the internal layout of the property, would also provide an additional bedroom. It would have a flat roof, including a rooflight, to a height of around 2.731 metres, with a depth of some 3 metres. The existing small conservatory close to the shared boundary with the adjoining property, No 6, would be demolished to facilitate the proposed extension.

The rear garden to the appeal property is enclosed by a low wall along the boundaries with [address] and the footpath to the rear. As a consequence, the rear of the property is open to public view. However, the proportions of the extension, including the use of a flat roof, mean that it would be visually subservient to the host building in terms of its scale and character.

The flat roof would join the existing pitched roof slightly above the existing eaves line. During my site visit, I saw a slightly taller extension to the rear of No 7, which can be seen above detached garaging to that property in views from [address] and from [address]. That extension, which includes a taller roof lantern, is across only part of the rear elevation. As a consequence, the difference between it and the height of original eaves line to the host property is very noticeable and appears slightly awkward. In contrast, the flat roofed extension proposed does not appear to be quite as high and would run across virtually the whole of the rear elevation to No 5, avoiding any obvious ‘step’ in the middle of the elevation. As a consequence, the extension would not be seen as especially jarring or objectionable in terms of its relationship with the host property. As such, whilst it would be seen from the adjacent road/footpath, there would be no material harm to the character and appearance of the area.

In light of my findings above, there would be no conflict with policy CS1 of the [site address] Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted December 2013), with policy PSP38(1) of the [site address] Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (adopted November 2017) or with guidance in the adopted [name] which, together and among other things, seek to ensure that new development is respectful of its surroundings and integrates well with existing adjacent development.

As noted above, the rear extension would have an overall height of approximately 2.731 metres and would project some 3 metres beyond the rear wall, along the shared boundary with the adjoining property, No 6 Larch Way1. Whilst it would breach the 45 degree rule referred to in the [name] in relation to the nearest rear facing window at No 6, the Guide confirms that any assessment in terms of impacts on light and outlook should also take account of the impact of existing buildings and boundary treatments .

In this case, not only is the boundary between the two properties comprised of timber fencing approximately 1.8 metres in height,2 with hedging within the neighbour’s garden along the fenceline extending roughly up to eaves height, but 1 Referred to as No [address] in the officer’s report. 2 Measurement taken from appellant’s statement paragraph 3.5 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 of 4 the adjacent window is enclosed by an existing conservatory to the rear of that property, of roughly the same depth as the proposed rear extension. Given that existing context, I am content that the proposed single-storey, flat-roofed extension would not materially affect levels of natural light and outlook in relation to the window at No 6. There would be no conflict, in this regard, with policies PSP8 and PSP38(2) of the [site address] Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan, or with the guidance in the [name], which seek to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

In support of the appeal, the appellant refers to a potential fallback position in relation to the rear extension and permitted development rights. However, due to the nature of the appeal, I do not have the Council’s comments on that. In any event, I have considered the proposal on its own merits and have found it be acceptable.

I have found no material harm as a consequence of the development proposed in terms of any adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area, or in terms of living conditions for adjoining occupiers. There is no conflict, in these regards, with the provisions of the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.

In addition to the standard time limit on commencement of development (1), a condition specifying the relevant plans is required in order to create certainty for all parties (2). A condition to ensure that the external materials match those on the existing dwelling is also necessary, in the interest of visual amenity (3).

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan Unnumbered Existing Plans LW01 [name] LW02 [name] LW03 [name] LW04 Existing and Proposed Block Plan LW05

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extensions hereby permitted shall match the existing building. ---------------------End of Conditions Schedule--------------------- https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4 of 4