Appeal 6007480

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension and a first floor side extension at [site address] , Kettering, Northants, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00874/HFUL , 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: Location plan, Plan No. 25/6/1.

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

There is one main issue which is the effect of the proposed extensions on the living conditions of occupiers of [address] with respect to outlook and light.

The appellant, in his evidence, suggests amendments to the original scheme. However, this appeal is against the Council’s refusal and I am only able to consider the original development as proposed that is the subject of the Council’s refusal notice.

The appeal site, No 64, comprises a large, two storey detached house on a generous plot. It has been extended in the past through the addition of a two storey side extension, a two and single storey rear extension and a front porch. The Appeal Decision Ref: 6007480 existing dwelling lies about 1m from the side boundary with No 66. The boundary is marked by a high, close boarded fence.

No 66 is a bungalow and lies about 1m from the shared boundary. It has three windows facing No 64. Two of these are obscure glazed and serve a bathroom and a separate toilet respectively. A third window serves a studio which also gains light from several rooflights. Another window, which the evidence suggests previously served the kitchen, has been bricked up. Since the two obscure glazed windows serve non-habitable rooms and have no outlook due to the glazing, any potential effect from the proposed extensions would not materially harm the living conditions of occupiers at No 66.

The studio window currently looks out towards the extended two storey side elevation of the appeal property. A person standing close to the window would have an oblique view to the front beyond the corner of No 64 and to the rear, above the existing single storey rear/side extension. However, outlook is significantly limited by the boundary fence and two storey elevation of the appeal dwelling beyond. Whilst the proposed first floor side extension would reduce the oblique view of sky to the rear, this effect would only be noticeable when standing close to the window and would result in a slight reduction in outlook. This would not cause material harm to the living conditions of occupiers.

With respect to light, the Council suggests that there would be a measurable loss of direct sunlight and increased overshadowing to the studio. However, I have seen no evidence to support this assertion. The position of the studio window means that it is already in shadow for much of the day and receives very little direct sunlight. The location of the proposed extensions, to its north-east, would not materially alter that. Moreover, daylight would continue to be received via the rooflights and any loss resulting from the proposed extensions would be negligible.

The proposed first floor side extension would have no material effect on the garden of No 66 owing to its position to the side of the bungalow and in the shadow of higher elements of No 64. The single storey rear extension would project about 3m behind the extended rear elevation of No 66. Nevertheless, in view of its limited height with pitched roof sloping away from the shared boundary, the distance of separation, the boundary fence and the orientation of the extension to the north-east of the rear of the bungalow, it would have no material effect on either daylight or sunlight reaching the rear of the bungalow or it garden.

It is concluded on the main issue that the proposed extensions would have no materially harmful effect on the living conditions of occupiers of [address] with respect to outlook or light. In consequence, they would comply with the requirements of Policy 8(e)(i) of the [name] 2011-2031, adopted 2016. Amongst other things, this expects development to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties from impacts including loss of light.

Turning to conditions, in addition to the statutory commencement condition, conditions are necessary to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and in materials that match the host dwelling. This is for the avoidance of doubt and to protect the character and appearance of the area. However, I do not consider that a condition restricting hours of working or deliveries is necessary given the limited scale of the development. Appeal Decision Ref: 6007480

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