Appeal 6007973

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a single-storey side garage extension and rear extension at [site address] , Poulton-with-fearnhead, Warrington, [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/01758/FULH, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

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: 2025-01-01 (Rev 5).

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

An application for costs was made by [name] against Warrington Borough Council and this will be the subject of a separate Decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed rear extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address] of light and outlook.

No 4 is a semi-detached house situated on the western side of Green Lane. It is attached to No [address] and lies to the north of it. It is set down a small amount from the level of the road. It has a moderate sized rear garden and has a small rear extension to its northern side, away from the boundary with No 6, The proposed development would involve the construction of a full-length garage extension to the side, and a single-storey rear extension, some 6.5 metres wide, 3.5 metres deep and 3 metres high with a flat roof, up to the boundary with No 6.

The Council contends that the proposed rear extension, because of its height and depth, would cause harm to the amenity of the occupiers of No [address] by reason of generating overshadowing, loss of light and overbearing appearance.

Policy ENV8 of the Council’s Local Plan (LP) indicates that the Council, when considering development proposals, will have regard to the need to respect living conditions of existing neighbouring residential occupiers in relation to outlook, sunlight, daylight, and overshadowing.

In addition, the [address] Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) refers to the impact of extensions on the amenity of local residents. In particular it considers the role of the 45 degree code in helping to protect such amenity of neighbouring properties by preventing overshadowing or obstruction, caused by large extensions on or close to a boundary. To comply with the code, extensions should be designed so as not to cross the 45 degree line taken in a horizontal plane and measured from the centre point of the neighbour’s nearest primary habitable room window. The line will show the maximum width and/or depth for an extension in order to avoid obstruction from light or views.

In this case, the proposed rear extension runs along the boundary with No 6 for some 3.5 metres at a height of 3 metres. Since the appeal property lies to the north of No 6, I do not consider that the extension would have any significant adverse impact with regard to overshadowing or loss of light.

The appellant contends that an extension of 3 metres depth would be permitted development, and it appears that this may well be the case, in which respect the issue becomes one of the significance of the additional 0.5 metres depth of the proposed development. To the rear of No 4 there are mature trees/shrubs, but to the rear of No 6 the outlook would appear to be largely open along the garden to the west and around to the south-west of the property. On this basis, therefore, whilst the extension would impinge on the 45 degree line from the rear habitable room window in No 6, I do not consider that the outlook/view from No 6 would be significantly harmed and would, in any case, be very little different from that of a 3 metre deep extension, which appears to be a realistic fall-back position.

In conclusion, therefore, I find that the proposed rear extension would not be significantly harmful to the outlook or view from the rear window of No 6 and would not overshadow or adversely affect light received at that property. On this basis, it would not conflict with Policy ENV8 of the LP or with guidance in the SPD. Accordingly, I allow this appeal subject to the conditions above.

I have attached a condition relating to plans because it is necessary that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. I have attached a further condition relating to materials in the interests of the visual amenities of the area.