Appeal 6005575

The appeal is dismissed.

The local planning authority (LPA) describes the proposed development as an amendment to an earlier planning approval for a single storey rear extension. However, the appeal application is not submitted as a material or a non-material amendment but as a separate application in its own right. I have no information before me to indicate that the earlier approval has been superseded or that it is not, therefore, an extant approval. However, there is an overlap between the extant approval and the current appeal proposal, and the two schemes differ in their designs, with the extant approval having a flat roof and the current proposal having a monopitch roof. I have not considered the appeal proposal as an amendment to the earlier approval, but rather as a separate, full application.

A draft National Planning Policy Framework ‘Plan-making and national decision-making policies’ was issued by the Government for consultation on 16 December 2025 (Consultation Draft Framework) and with a deadline for comments by 10 March 2026. No final decisions upon the consultation have yet been announced. Therefore, and for this reason, I afford the Consultation Draft Framework limited weight as a material planning consideration. In respect of the main issue, I have afforded full weight to the published National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (as amended) (the Framework) and the adopted development plan for the area. In this case, the Consultation Draft Framework does not alter or outweigh my conclusion below regarding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address] in respect of outlook.

The appeal property has a rear outrigger but which, by its width, does not extend to the common boundary with No.[address], leaving a gap between the appeal building and the boundary of approximately 1.9 metres. The situation is replicated at No. [address] so that there is space between the two outriggers of about 3.8 metres, divided by the common boundary.

The principle of infilling the space up to the common boundary has been established by the extant approval, though this does not infill the whole of the available space. With the extant approval, about half the initial length of the outrigger is left open up to the common boundary, whereas the current proposal is to infill the whole of it. The effect is to bring the development much closer to windows and doors in the facing property.

On my site visit, I was able to note ground floor windows in the adjoining outrigger at No. [address] and which would face the appeal proposal. In addition, there is a door to its main rear wall.

There exists a solid wooden boundary fence between properties with a height of approximately 2 metres and with a small trellis on top about 0.2 metres high. However, the proposed extension would have a roof height of approximately 2.5 metres with a monopitch roof rising, though away from the boundary, to a height of 3 metres.

In my judgement, the effect of the appeal proposal would be to intensify a narrow tunnel effect to No. [address]. While the monopitch roof to the proposed extension would be at its lowest point when facing the adjoining property, this would have only a minor beneficial mitigation to such a tunnelling effect. By its height, its length and very close proximity to neighbouring windows and doors, it would be overly dominant, overbearing and oppressive, and as such would result in a material and adverse effect in terms of the outlook enjoyed by the occupiers of the adjoining property at No. [address].

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would not accord with policy CP4 of the [site address] [name] 2007 (CS), policies DM1 and DM3 of the [site address] Development Management Document 2015, the advice contained within the [site address] Design and [name] 2009 and chapter 12 of the Framework, all of which aim to protect the amenities of residents and their quality of life. I do not find policy KP2 of the CS to be pertinent, being as it is concerned with general principles of regeneration.

There are no material planning considerations that indicate that the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.