Appeal 6006208

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for Demolition of [name] and Shed and Construction of 6 meter [name] at [site address] , Kent [postcode] in accordance with the application DA/25/01462/PDE and the details submitted with it including plan nos. 1020/PL1/004 rev: 00; 1020/PL1/000 rev: 00; 1020/PL1/003 rev: 00; 1020/PL1/002 rev: 00; and 1020/PL1/001 rev: 00.

Subject to limitations and conditions, Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO) grants planning permission for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse. If a proposed enlargement would exceed the limits in [name].1(f) but falls within those in [name].1(g) to Part 1, [name].4(5) provides that the local planning authority should notify each adjoining owner or occupier. Where any objections are received, [name].4(7) stipulates that the prior approval of the local planning authority is required as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of all adjoining premises. In this instance, objections from adjoining premises have been received.

The main issue is whether or not prior approval should be granted having regard to the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No 49), with particular reference to outlook.

The appeal property is a two storey end of terrace dwelling. It has an existing ground floor rear projection, as well as an open sided outbuilding which is constructed upto and along the site boundary with No 49. No 49 has been extended to the rear with a single storey conservatory which is set in from the shared boundary with the appeal site, as well as a large outbuilding at the rear of its plot.

The proposal would extend six metres in depth. It would not be full width and would be set in from the shared boundary with No 49 by approximately 1.6 metres. To facilitate the extension, the existing outbuilding along the shared boundary with No 49 would be removed.

I acknowledge that the proposed extension would be slightly taller than the outbuilding it would replace. However, in comparison to that existing structure it would have a significantly reduced projection towards the rear of the garden and an increased setback from the shared boundary. As a result, in my view, the appeal scheme would not result in an unacceptably harmful impact on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. In particular, it would not give rise to undue harm to the residents of No 49 in terms of outlook or light.

There is no requirement to have regard to the development plan. However, its policies can be a material consideration. Policy M10 of the Dartford Plan (2024) (DP) outlines that residential extensions should not materially harm existing residential amenity. My attention has been drawn to the supporting text to the policy which indicates that single storey extensions should generally not be greater than 3.5 metres in depth on a common boundary. In this instance, the proposal would be set back from the common boundary, and I have found that it would not harm existing residential amenity. Thus, the appeal scheme accords with the aims of Policy M10 of the DP insofar as it is a material consideration.

Given all of the above, I conclude that the proposed development would not adversely impact the amenity of adjoining premises.

I note that objections were received in relation to the design of the extension and setting a precedence. These are not, however, pertinent factors in an appeal of this nature, where prior approval is required only as to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of adjoining occupiers.

Similarly, matters relating to loss of views, overcrowding and car parking are not relevant matters in the appeal.

As the proposal’s side elevation would not have windows fronting No 49, the proposal would not result in a loss of privacy for the occupiers of the neighbouring property.

Planning permission granted for development under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO is subject to the conditions set out in paragraphs A.3 and A.4 of that Class. In summary, these require external materials be of a similar appearance to those used in construction of the exterior of the existing dwelling. In addition, the GPDO requires the development be completed within a period of 3 years starting from the prior approval date. I consider that no further conditions are necessary.

For the reasons given above, I conclude the appeal should be allowed and prior approval should be granted.