Single storey rear extension

📊

See the success rate & inspector analytics

Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.

Sign Up Free

Technical Issues Heatmap

Residential Amenity
Policy Weight
Extensions

Inspector’s Reasoning

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 April 2025 by Sara Manson DipTP Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 May 2025 Appeal Ref: APP/M0655/D/25/3363442 5 Lansdowne, Culcheth and Glazebury, Warrington WA3 4EA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Clearview Home Improvements Ltd against the decision of Warrington Borough Council. • The application Ref is 2025/00133/FULH. • The development proposed is a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey rear extension at 5 Lansdowne, Culcheth and Glazebury, Warrington WA3 4EA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/00133/FULH, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: Proposed Plan & Elevations 150080125/2. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the proposed development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Appeal Procedure and Main Issue 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. The main issue for which is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number 7 Lansdowne (No. 7) with specific regard to light and outlook. Reasons for the Recommendation 3. The adjoining property at No. 7 has a set of French doors that open on to its rear garden, allowing light into the living room, only a small distance from the shared solid timber fenced boundary. Consequently, the proposed extension would slightly impinge guidance around the ’45 degree code’ set out in the House Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2021 (SPD). The SPD is guidance only and no such rule is set out in the development plan policies provided. Given the height of the existing boundary fence, along with the width and height of the French doors, and a further source of light from the existing window in the front elevation, the Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/25/3363442 2 proposal would have only a marginal effect on the amount of morning light that would reach the living room. It would, therefore, not cause the room to be noticeably darker or significantly alter the outlook, which would be primarily over what is otherwise an open, unincumbered and generously sized rear garden. 4. Any alleged lack of detail on the submitted plans has not hindered my ability to assess the potential effects of the proposal based on its design, its slight set in position relative to No. 7 and my observations on site. Therefore, the proposed extension would not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Consequently, it would accord with Policy DC6 of the Warrington Local Plan 2023, which seeks to ensure development does not adversely impact the amenity of neighbouring occupants amongst other things. Conditions 5. In addition to the standard time period for commencement of the development, I have attached a condition requiring it to accord with the approved plans, for enforcement purposes. A condition requiring the use of materials matching that of the existing building is also necessary to ensure an appropriate appearance. Conclusion and Recommendation 6. The appeal scheme would comply with the development plan for the reasons I have set out and there is nothing to suggest a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is allowed, subject to the conditions specified. Sara Manson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 7. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, subject to the conditions set out. John Morrison INSPECTOR
Expert Representation

Don't leave your appeal to chance.

Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.

Get Free Review How it works →