Appeal 6006474

The appeal is allowed and approval granted under the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) for the erection of a single storey rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application reference PL/3295/25 and the plans submitted with it including planning numbers 85canninroad/2024/12, 85canningroad/2024/13 and 85canningroad/2024/16, and subject to the relevant conditions and limitations as set out in Class A of the GPDO.

The provisions of the GPDO require the local planning authority (LPA) to assess the proposed development solely on the basis of its impact upon the amenity of any adjoining premises or occupiers, taking into account any representations received.

The appellant sought prior approval for the erection of a single storey rear extension measuring 6 metres from the original rear wall of the appeal property and with a height of 3.7 metres. The LPA considers that the proposal complies with the physical limitations and requirements of the GPDO. I have no reason to disagree. It notified the adjoining occupiers of the proposed development and two objections were received.

The Council assessed the proposal in terms of its effect upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. In doing so, it considered that the proposal would have an adverse effect upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No.[address] by reasons of loss of sunlight and outlook.

Therefore, I consider the main issue to be whether the proposed development would have an adverse impact upon the amenity of adjoining occupiers with regard to sunlight and outlook.

The appeal property is an end-terrace, two-storey dwelling located on the south side of [address] and where the proposed extension would face south. It has a two-storey rear outrigger and a small single story rear extension, and beyond it and around it a wrap-around plastic side and rear canopy. The LPA makes no objection as to the lawfulness of the canopy. The adjoining property to the east, No. [address] has a two-storey outrigger but is otherwise unextended. The adjacent property to the west, No. [address], has a single storey extension with a flat roof.

The proposed development is for a single-storey extension 6.0 metres deep, 3.0 metres to the eaves, and with a maximum height of 3.7 metres. There would be no openings to the flank walls.

The proposed extension would be set in from the common boundary with No. [address] by approximately 2.0 metres. Any impact in terms of loss of sunlight would be in the mornings, but in my judgement, the inset, plus the limited height of the proposed extension, would limit any obstruction of sunlighting to No. [address] so as not to affect substantially the amenities of the occupants. In addition, the proposed extension would be sited where there is currently a canopy which extends outwards from the original dwelling by a similar distance as is proposed for the extension and with a comparable height. Therefore, I do not disagree with the conclusions of the LPA that any loss to the adjoining occupiers in these terms would not be so significant as to warrant the dismissal of the proposal.

The situation would be somewhat different with regard to the impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address] in this regard and where the proposed extension would be constructed up to the common boundary.

Any sunlighting impact mostly would occur after midday, given the siting of the proposed extension to the west of No. [address]. However, on my site visit, I was able to see that towards the end of the afternoon, sunlight was shining upon the whole of the rear elevation of the adjoining property, overcoming the existing canopy of the host dwelling and a small shed positioned close to the windows of its neighbouring property. I was also able to note that the canopy has a solid wall along its boundary with No.[address], comparable in its impact upon sunlighting to that of the proposed extension, but which nevertheless did not prevent sunlight reaching No. 87. I appreciate that my observation was only for one day of the year, but when taking into account the existing height and dimensions of the existing canopy with its solid facing wall, together with what I was able to observe, I do not consider that the proposed single storey rear extension would have a significantly different or adverse impact in terms of a loss of sunlighting to the occupiers of No. [address] when compared with the existing situation.

I do not consider that the amenities of the occupiers of any other property would be adversely affected in this way.

On my site visit, I was able to note that, while the proposed extension would extend outwards further than the properties immediately adjoining it, there are extensions to other properties close by which extend as much, if not more, than what is proposed.

Furthermore, I was able to see that the proposed extension would have a comparable length and height to the existing canopy and where the latter has a solid wall along the boundary between the properties.

Therefore, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed rear extension would not have a significantly adverse effect upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No. [address] in terms of an overbearing or oppressive impact so as to materially diminish the outlook for its occupants.

I do not consider that there would be unacceptable impacts in this or in any other way upon the living conditions of the occupiers of other premises.

For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.