Appeal 6007452

The appeal is dismissed.

The single-storey rear extension has already been constructed, and this application is, on this basis, retrospective in nature.

There is some dispute as to whether the rear ground-floor room at the neighbouring No [address] is a kitchen or a dining/kitchen. I note that the front room at each of the pair of houses is shown as a lounge, and the occupier of No 87 confirms that the rear room is a dining-kitchen. This would seem to me to be the most likely configuration and, although the appellant’s drawings show the rear room at No 87 to be a kitchen only, I have no evidence before me that the appellant has been inside No 87 and that he is, therefore, able to confirm that to be the case. I have taken the situation to be as indicated by the neighbouring occupier that the rear room is a dining-kitchen and therefore should be considered a habitable room.

The main issue is the effect of the rear single-storey extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], by way of light and outlook.

No 85 is a semi-detached house situated on the southern side of [address]. It has already been extended following a planning permission under application reference: 12402/21. This allowed for a large two-storey side extension and a part-two-storey, part single-storey rear extension. The permitted rear extension included development up to the side boundary with No 87 some 1.5 metres deep over two-storeys and a further 1.5 metres single-storey. The extensions have been built, but the single-storey rear element has been constructed around 2 metres longer than permitted, such that the extension now projects some 5 metres from the original rear elevation of the house along the boundary with No 87.

The Council contends that the rear extension as now built, by virtue of its scale, height and siting, impacts detrimentally on the outlook and living conditions of residents at the adjoining No. [address] to the west.

Policy CG4 of [name] document (CS) indicates that the council will ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding land uses and occupiers, protecting amenity, privacy, safety and security.

[address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) indicates that extensions should not have an overbearing or overly dominant effect on adjoining dwellings. It goes on to note that the position of a rear extension in relation to neighbouring properties can affect whether the extension overshadows the outlook from principal rooms or any external private amenity space/garden, and consequently impacts unduly on the living conditions enjoyed by neighbours. The ideal solution is therefore for rear extensions to be located away from any party boundary with adjoining dwellings, especially in the case of two storey structures.

The SPD also indicates that single-storey rear extensions of up to 3 metres in length (taken from the original rear elevation of the property) on semi-detached houses, will normally be acceptable, and that similarly sized-two storey rear extensions will normally be acceptable if set away from any shared boundary by at least 2 metres. Longer extensions may be acceptable where they do not cause significant overshadowing of main room windows in neighbouring properties. This can usually be achieved by setting the extension away from a shared boundary.

In this case, the extension now has a blank wall projecting along the boundary with No 87 some 5 metres in depth. Of this the first 1.5 metres is two-storey and the remaining 3.5 metres is single-storey with a flat roof and a height of 3 metres. Given that the appeal property is situated to the east of No 87, there will, of necessity, be some overshadowing and obstruction of light to the nearest habitable room window in the neighbouring property and to the private amenity space by its rear elevation. I acknowledge that this is only for a short period at the beginning of the day but, nevertheless, there is some harm, which is exacerbated by the additional 2 metres depth and the 3 metre height of the rear extension as built.

In my opinion, the 5 metre length of blank brick wall that results from the rear extension as built, and which is part full two-storey height and part 3 metre single-storey height, is an overbearing structure. It is built up to the boundary with No 87. In addition, it would appear that the properties to the rear of Nos 85 and 87 are set at a slightly higher level, and that this also impacts adversely on the outlook from the rear of No 87, albeit to a limited extent.

The appellant states that following the above permission, “construction works started on site relating to the rear extension. However, during construction a number of changes were required due to personal circumstances and aspirations of the appellant. As such, the proposed built form does not match the approved plans in whole.” In addition to the previously approved rear extension, a new front canopy has been erected, and the single-storey element to the rear has been extended from 3 metres to 5 metres in total. However, I have no details of any changes to personal circumstances, and the aspirations of the appellant are not material planning considerations.

In conclusion, I find that the extension as built is harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] of overshadowing and outlook and, therefore, conflicts with Policy CG4 of the CS, and with guidance on house extensions in the SPD. Accordingly, I dismiss this appeal.