Appeal 6006089

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first-floor rear extension and side windows in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/01579/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan; Block/Site Plan; Existing Floor Plans And Elevations; and Proposed Floor Plans And Elevations.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those of the existing dwelling.

The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the new windows to first floor level on both of the side elevations have been fitted with obscured glazing, and no part of those windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Details of the type of obscured glazing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the windows are installed and, once installed, the obscured glazing shall be permanently retained thereafter.

I have used the description of the appeal proposal from the decision notice, with minor revisions, as I consider this better reflects the proposed development before me.

The main issues are the effects of the appeal proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

No. 65 is a two storey dwelling located part way along [address], a pleasant residential street that consists predominately of two storey dwellings.

The proposal would involve the construction of an upper floor to an existing single storey rear extension. This element of the proposal would be mostly restricted from public view other than for a short, angled view from outside of No.65, views would also be possible from neighbouring gardens and what appeared to be allotments to the south-west.

During my site visit I observed a number of two storey components leading from the back of properties, the majority of which appeared to step slightly back from the main side profile of the associated building. The proposed extension would differ in this regard as it would run flush with the existing side profile of No.65, however I could already observe the existing single storey extension which follows the same building line to the side of No.65.

Bearing in mind that the form and massing of the proposal would not appear strikingly longer than what already exists on the side profile of No.65 and would not exceed the existing eaves level, it therefore seems to me that adding a further level onto what exists at present, would not appear out of place or harmful to the character or appearance of No.65 or the wider area.

Turning to the proposed side windows, whilst these would in part be visible, they would represent inconsequential changes and are therefore acceptable in character and appearance terms.

Therefore, I find that the appeal proposal would align with Policy CS13 of the adopted [name] 2015 (the CS); saved policies SDP7 and SDP9 of the City of Southampton Local Plan Review March 2015 (the LP); paragraphs 2.3.1, 2.3.2, and 2.3.8 of the adopted [name] 2006 (the SPD) and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework December 2024 (the Framework), which amongst other matters, seek well-designed development that respects the site and its surroundings through its scale, massing, proportion, density, layout, character and visual appearance.

The Council’s concerns on this matter relate to the effects of the proposal upon the living conditions of the immediate neighbours to No.65, being No 63 to the west and No.67 to the east.

During my site visit I could view No.63 from the rear garden and upper floor windows of No.65. I noted that the physical dwelling of No. 63 is separated from the boundary with No.65 by a passageway leading to the back garden, and there is a slightly narrower passageway from the same boundary to the physical form of No.

As a result, there is a degree of separation between the two buildings.

No.63 has a two-storey stepped back component on its rear elevation that is of a broadly similar depth into its garden to the proposed first floor addition and the existing single storey extension on No.65. There are a couple of windows at ground floor level on this rear component, there are also further windows on the side elevation that face towards the existing two storey form of No.65.

Due to the separation distances involved between the two properties, I am of the view that the increase in building mass arising from the proposed first floor extension would not result in adverse implications upon the living environment of No.63.

Turning to the effects upon No.67, the proposed extension would be positioned directly on the boundary with this property. and would present as a blank elevation in this direction. During my site visit I could observe the rear of No. 67 and its back garden from the upper floor windows of No.65.

No. 67 has a rear single storey extension similar in depth and style to what presently exists at No.65. It does not have any principal windows facing towards the side of No.65, and I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would not result in harm to the internal living environment of No.67 through matters such as loss of light or overbearing implications. I also noted that No.67 has a long and expansive garden, with plenty of areas to sit out within that would not be impacted upon by the proposals, I am therefore satisfied that the extension would not have any significant effect upon the outdoor living environment of No.67. Overall, I find that the effects of the proposal upon the living conditions of No.67 would be acceptable.

For all of the above reasons, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have any significant effect upon the outlook, natural light, nor create a sense of enclosure or have an overbearing impact upon the living conditions of No. 63 or No. 67. In reaching this conclusion, I do acknowledge paragraph 2.5.2 of the SPD but for the reasons I have explained, I am satisfied that the proposal would not unduly prejudice the level of natural light to neighbouring habitable rooms.

Accordingly, the proposal is in accordance with policy CS13 of the CS; saved policy SDP1 of the LP; paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.5.2 of the SPD and Section 12 of the Framework, which amongst other matters, seek a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The standard time limit is required together with a condition listing the plans in the interests of certainty. I have also included a condition requiring that the materials to be used shall match those of the existing building.

I also consider that a condition is necessary requiring obscure glazing, with fixed panes below eye level to the windows on the side elevations, to protect the privacy of the occupants of No 63 and 67.

For all of the above reasons, having regard to all matters raised, and subject to the specified conditions, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.