Appeal 6005416

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension at [site address] , Lupset, Wakefield [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01879/FUL, and subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan referenced 4008/02 [name] and [name] and Elevations.

In the banner above, and in my formal decision, I have amended the description of development to remove wording which is not an act of development.

On my site visit I observed that the development subject to the appeal had taken place and was complete. Planning permission is therefore sought retrospectively. Although the development is largely consistent with the submitted plans, I observed minor differences in the proportions/position of the openings on the rear elevation, inconsistency in the external steps, and a marginal increase in width. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: a) the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area; and, b) the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address] with particular regard to overbearing, overshadowing and light.

The appeal relates to a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling with rendered elevations and a tiled hipped roof. To the rear of the property is a private garden with a close board fence, of modest height, separating the garden with that of its semi-detached neighbour, No.[address] (No.33). Land levels drop slightly from front to rear. The surrounding area comprises dwellings of similar form, design and appearance.

The dwelling has been extended to the rear with a single storey extension which is the subject of this appeal. The degree of projection to the rear is less than the depth of the original dwelling and does not disproportionately elongate the property. Furthermore, the extension is set in from both the side elevation and the shared boundary with No.33, albeit by a very small distance. The ridge height is set below the sill level of the first-floor openings, while the gable roof design means the eaves are positioned lower. Taken together, these parameters ensure that the extension remains modest in scale and massing, appearing proportionate and clearly subservient to the host dwelling. Therefore, the host property does not appear visually overwhelmed and remains dominant.

I accept that the roof form does not replicate the hipped roof design of the original dwelling. However, the modest scale of the extension, its rear siting and use of appropriate materials ensure that the extension does not appear as a discordant addition to the host property. The rear siting of the extension also means that there are only glimpsed views from the public highway. As such the extension does not appear prominent from the surrounding street scene.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the existing building and surrounding area. Therefore, the development complies with Policy LP57 of the Wakefield District Local Plan 2036 (the LP), which requires extensions to dwellings to respect the character and scale of the dwelling.

I have also had regard to the guidance contained within the Wakefield District Residential Design Guide 2018 (the RDG). This advises that extensions should be subordinate to the original house, which should remain dominant in terms of massing, height and position, and that more flexibility can be applied when considering the design of rear extensions.

The extension is located very close to the boundary with No.33. The boundary is defined by a fence of modest height. Due to the low height of the fence the scale of the extension can be seen protruding above the fence line. The presence of the extension would also be exacerbated to some extent by the lower ground level of the rear gardens. These factors heighten the visibility of the extension from the external spaces of No.33.

Notwithstanding this, the extension is not of significant depth and only occupies a short length of the overall shared boundary. Furthermore, the height of the eaves is modest, being set at approximately the height of the ground floor window lintel. The roof of the development also slopes away from No.33 which limits the overall mass of the development along the boundary. The limited scale of the development means that the extension does not overly dominate the adjacent property. Furthermore, there is limited built form which projects significantly above the remainder of the boundaries meaning that open views across the adjacent gardens are retained. As a result, while visible, the extension does not create a sense of enclosure or undue dominance when experienced from No.33.

Within the rear elevation of No.33 is a window which is positioned close to the shared boundary. I understand that this opening serves a living room, which is a habitable room. The depth of the extension, and proximity to the window means that it results in a breach of the 45-degree rule1. Therefore, I acknowledge that the extension would result in some erosion of light to internal spaces. Furthermore, the orientation of the properties means that some overshadowing to the rear garden space of that property is also likely.

However, the affected window is not the only opening to the room it serves as it benefits from a similar sized window to the front elevation. As such, the room benefits from a significant additional source of light. Therefore, this heightens the level of light that can filter into that room. Although the extension breaches the 45-degree guideline, the presence of a second window serving the same room materially reduces the sensitivity of the affected opening.

I am mindful that planning permission has previously been granted for a smaller single storey rear extension2. While not as deep, given the close relationship, I understand that this would also have breached the 45-degree rule from the affected opening. The additional depth of the appeal scheme is not significant and would only add a modest amount of further mass along the boundary. [name] acknowledge that some additional light would be lost, I do not consider that the degree of loss would be so significant to have an adverse effect on the internal living environment. In coming to this conclusion, I am particularly mindful of the second opening serving that room.

With regard to external spaces, No.33 enjoys a good sized garden. The extension only occupies a relatively short length of boundary and, as observed above, is modest in height and scale. Any overshadowing would be limited in extent and would affect only a small proportion of the overall garden area. As such, the single storey extension does not result in high level of overshadowing to the external space of No.33.

I have had regard to the advice contained within the RDG and I am mindful that this is guidance only. In any event I note that the RDG advises that a breach of the 45- degree rule is “likely to cause overshadowing of the neighbouring property and may be refused” (my emphasis). As such, my interpretation of this allows for a degree of professional judgement and in this instance, site circumstances, mean that adverse effects do not arise.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the development does not have a significantly harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address] with particular regard to overbearing, overshadowing and 1 As set out in the RDG, paragraphs 1.07.06 and 1.07.07 2 25/00052/FUL light. Therefore, the development complies with Policy LP57 of the LP. This requires that extensions to dwellings respect residential amenity by avoiding harmful effects through overbearing and overshadowing.

I acknowledge the concerns raised by a third party with regard to design, light and matters relating to a boundary dispute arising from an encroachment of the development. I have considered matters regarding design and light in the main issues above. Boundary disputes are civil matters and does not fall within the scope of the planning merits of the case.

As the development has commenced and is substantially complete, it is not necessary to impose the standard time limit or materials condition. However, I have required compliance with the submitted plans as these deviate slightly from the development which has been carried out, and these are the plans upon which I have made my decision.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.