Appeal 6006456

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of a detached garage and attached carport. Double storey side and rear wrap-around extension and part single storey rear extension at [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 26/00300/FU, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 2514-D-90-001 (Site Location Plan), 2514-D-90-003 (Site Plan Proposed), 2514-D-20-021 [name] (Ground Floor Plan Proposed), 2514-D-20- 022 [name] (First Floor Plan Proposed), 2514-D-22-024 [name] ([name]) and 2514-D-20-023 (Roof Plan Proposed).

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials listed on the application form.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of occupiers of 65 The Birches (No 65), in terms of outlook, daylight and sunlight.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwelling situated in a residential area. No 65 adjacent is a similar property which is separated from the appeal property by driveways which form a spacious gap. It also has a detached outbuilding in its rear garden area adjacent to the side boundary with the appeal property. Although this obscured my view of the ground floor windows on the rear elevation of No 65, habitable windows on rear elevations of dwellings are common and I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

I acknowledge that Policy HDG2 of the Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2012) (SPD) advises that all developments should protect the amenity of neighbours, including that excessive overshadowing and overdominance will be resisted. It also provides numerical guidelines which seek to ensure that extensions comply with the 45-degree code.

The proposed two storey side extension would not fully adhere to the SPD guidelines, in terms of its outward projection and its proximity to the common boundary. Even so, due to the narrow width of the extension and as it would be recessed from the boundary, a spacious gap to the side and rear elevation of No 65 would still be retained. These factors would reduce the prominence of the extension when viewed from any windows which serve habitable rooms on the rear elevation of No 65.

Furthermore, the appellant has provided a plan which indicates that the two storey side extension would comply with the 45-degree code. [name] do not have details of where the nearest ground floor windows at No 65 are located, the 45- degree line is drawn from close to the side elevation of No 65, which seems to be around the closest area a window would be located. I therefore see no reasons to doubt the accuracy of the appellant’s plan and thus the extension’s compliance with the 45-degree code.

For the above reasons, the proposed two storey side extension would not be unacceptably dominant or overbearing when experienced from any habitable rooms which the ground floor windows at No 65 serve. Accordingly, it would not have an unacceptable effect on outlook and daylight to the occupiers of No 65.

The appellant states that the nearest first floor window at No 65 serves a bathroom. This seems consistent with my observations from my site visit, where I observed that the window is narrow and is possibly obscurely glazed. Even if the window were to serve a bedroom, for the reasons I have already set out, the two storey side extension would not be unduly dominant or overbearing when viewed from it.

With regards to the effect on direct sunlight to No 65, as the proposed two storey side extension would be situated to the south-east of the rear elevation of No 65, any impacts on direct sunlight would likely be limited to during the morning hours only. In the absence of any evidence from the Council to the contrary, this would not result in harm to the extent that it would warrant dismissal of the appeal.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would not be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 65, in terms of outlook, daylight or sunlight. It would comply with Policy P10 of the [name] (2014) and Saved Policy GP5 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (Review 2006), which amongst other matters, require that developments should be appropriate to its context and avoid a loss of amenity.

I have considered the comments of the Parish Council. However, insofar as the size of the extension impacts on the character and appearance of the area, including overdevelopment and the space between dwellings, section 1 of the Council’s officer report makes clear that it has identified no harm in this regard, and I see no reason to disagree. Moreover, despite the size of the first-floor rear window, it would overlook the rear garden of the appeal property rather than neighbouring gardens. Consequently, the comments of the Parish Council do not change my findings on the appeal overall.

The standard time limit and approved plans conditions are necessary in the interests of certainty and clarity. A condition requiring that the materials used are those listed on the application form is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development would comply with the development plan overall and there are no other identified considerations which would alter this finding. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.