In this case, the council refused planning permission for a two-storey side and rear extension on two familiar grounds.
First, it argued that the side extension would close the gap to the neighbouring property and create a ‘terracing effect’, harming the character of the street.
Second, it argued that the extension would cause an unacceptable loss of light and outlook to side-facing windows at the neighbouring house.
Both of these are very common reasons for refusal — and both were wrong.
In our appeal statement, we addressed these points directly and in detail.
On character and appearance, we demonstrated that Windsor Road is a varied street, with a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties, many of which have been extended in different ways. In that context, the idea that this particular gap made a meaningful contribution to the street was simply not correct.
We also showed that the design of the extension — including the setback at first floor level and the form of the roof — ensured that it would read as a subordinate addition, not as part of a terrace.
The inspector agreed. He concluded that the gap was not important to the character of the street and that the extension would not appear cramped, contrived or out of keeping. He also confirmed that design guidance requiring a one-metre gap should not be applied rigidly in this case.
On neighbour impact, we explained that the affected windows were side-facing and already experienced limited light and outlook due to their position next to the boundary and the existing building.
We supported this with a detailed daylight and sunlight assessment, which showed that, when properly assessed, the overall impact on the neighbouring property would be acceptable.
Again, the inspector agreed. He found that the neighbouring property already experienced a high degree of enclosure and limited light from these windows, and that the proposal would not result in any unacceptable additional harm.
Planning permission was therefore granted.
