Appeal 6005486

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/71049, and the plans Location Plan 25.072-[name]-0001-P02, Site/Block Plan 25.072-HAY-DR-A-0002-P02, [name] 25.072- HAY-DR-A-003-P01 and [name] 25.072-HAY-DR-A-004-P01, subject to the following conditions:

The side facing shower room window as shown on the approved drawings shall be maintained as a top hung window with obscure glazing for the life of the development.

Unless within 3 months of the date of this decision a scheme for the rendering of the wall of the extension which faces number [address] is submitted in writing to the local planning authority for approval, and unless the approved scheme is implemented within 3 months of the local planning authority’s approval, the use of the extension shall cease and the extension shall be removed. Upon implementation of the approved scheme specified in this condition, the rendering shall thereafter be maintained. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined.

The description of development in the heading above has been amended from that used on the planning application form. Although the proposed development has already been built, I have removed the wording ‘retention of’ as this does not relate to development. The description used above provides a more accurate description of the development proposed.

The application form states that the development was undertaken in August 2025. I saw during my visit that the shell of the rear extension has been completed with most of the internal works still requiring completion. The works undertaken appear to accord with the plans before me. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis of the development that has already taken place.

The main issues are the effect of the rear extension on: • the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area; and • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at numbers 74 (No 74) and [address] (No 78) with reference to outlook, privacy, sunlight, and daylight.

The appeal property is a two storey; semi-detached dwelling with a loft conversion and dormer window to the rear roof slope, located in a residential area. [address] comprises a mix of semi-detached and blocks of four terraced dwellings. These have small front gardens, primarily now used for parking, and rear gardens. The crescent has a relatively consistent building line to the front whilst extensions have eroded the building line to the rear of properties. The dwellings originally had brick outbuildings to the rear. In sharing design characteristics with neighbouring dwellings, the appeal property makes an attractive and positive contribution to the character of the area.

The appeal site has a hard landscaped rear garden area that also includes two storage buildings. The single storey extension, the subject of this appeal, occupies a large proportion of the rear garden area. However sufficient useable space remains available for common external activities to continue to be able to take place.

Extensions to the rear of many of the properties in [address] have occurred. As such, an extension to the rear is not out of character with the surrounding area. The extension has a large floor plate however, the appellant has drawn to my attention, other applications that have been approved for larger extensions in the area. The extension, due to its single storey nature cannot be seen from a public vantage point, is of an appropriate scale, and is subordinate to the main dwelling.

The extension has been built using a comparable coloured brick to the existing dwelling. I note however, that the wall of the extension facing number 78 has been constructed from breeze block and left as such. Whilst this elevation and material would be out of character with the surrounding area, a planning condition to secure that the wall is rendered could overcome this concern.

For the above reasons, the extension would not be out of character with the appeal property or the surrounding area. Accordingly, the extension complies with Policies ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (BCCS) and SAD EOS9 of the Site Allocations and Delivery Development Plan Document (DPD). These policies, amongst other things, seek development that is of high-quality design and appropriate for its locality.

On its rear elevation, the extension has a glazed door and window which serve the lounge. On its side elevation, the extension has obscurely glazed windows serving a utility room and shower room and an obscurely glazed door into the utility room from the side passage.

These windows are around 1m from the 2m high side boundary with No 74. The neighbouring property also has an approximate 1m wide side passage. As the windows in the extension are obscurely glazed and a 2m brick boundary wall sits between the properties, there would be no loss of privacy to the occupiers of No 74.

A new boundary wall has been erected in front of the existing boundary fence with No 78. No windows are in the side elevation facing No 78 however, a window and door are located on the rear elevation. These only offer limited and oblique views into the rear end of the garden of No 78 resulting in no loss of privacy.

With regards to outlook, the extension occupies much of the rear garden and in doing so, is visible to the occupiers of the neighbouring properties at No’s 74 and 78. However, the extension is no more visible to neighbouring occupiers than any of the other rear extensions that have been undertaken in [address]. Consequently, whilst the extension is visible to neighbouring occupiers and has altered the oblique outlook into the garden of the appeal property from the neighbouring properties, this has not led to a harmful effect on the living conditions of either neighbour. A high standard of amenity remains for the existing neighbours.

In relation to sunlight and daylight, the extension at the appeal property faces north-west and has around a 2m separation distance to No 74. As a result, the extension has not led to a significant loss of late afternoon/evening sunlight to the rear facing windows and rear garden of No 74. In relation to No 78, an existing solid roof conservatory is located at the rear of the property which has already diminished the level of sunlight accessing the lounge/dining room to No 78. Due to the conservatory and the north-west facing position of the rear of the dwellings, only a modest reduction in sunlight would be experienced by the occupiers of No 78. For similar reasons, any loss of daylight would be minimal.

For the above reasons, the extension would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at No’s 74 and [address] with reference to outlook, privacy, sunlight, and daylight. Accordingly, the extension complies with Policies ENV3 of the BCCS and SAD EOS9 of the DPD. The requirements of which have been outlined above.

I note the petition and letters of objection from residents. In addition to the main issues, these included concerns regarding unauthorised building works, loss of garden area, drainage, and boundary issues. These factors are not in dispute between the main parties and were addressed in the [name], with the Council concluding that there would be no material harm in these regards and did not form part of its reasons for refusing the proposal. I have also considered these matters and am satisfied with respect to these concerns and find that, no substantiated evidence has been submitted to lead me to a different view.

The issue of noise and dust from construction is noted. However, this was a temporary effect causing limited harm. Furthermore, the extension has already been erected and most works now remaining are internal only.

The Council sought a condition requiring the shower room window to be fitted with obscure glazing and be top hung. As the window has already been fitted and is obscurely glazed and top opening only, it is only necessary to condition that the window remains in this form for the life of the development.

Condition 2 is imposed to ensure that the breeze block wall rendering details are submitted to and approved by the local planning authority and implemented to make the development acceptable in planning terms. There is a strict timetable for compliance because permission is being granted retrospectively, and it is not possible to use a negatively worded condition to secure the approval and implementation of the external cladding materials before the development takes place. The condition will ensure that the development can be enforced against if the requirements are not met.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed, subject to the conditions set out above.