Part two storey rear extension with single storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 March 2026 by Alexander O’Doherty LLB (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002680 8 Priory Road, Newbury RG14 7QN • 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 Mr Aaron Kendall against the decision of West Berkshire District Council. • The application Ref is 25/01387/HOUSE. • The development proposed is part two storey rear extension with single storey side extension. Proposed first floor window in Bedroom 2. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. An amended Daylight & Sunlight Study was submitted at the appeal stage, which contained new technical material. Paragraph 12.1.1. of the Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England1 is clear that in general, appeals are determined on the same basis as the original application, and that the appellant’s submissions, including the statement of case, should not normally include new evidence or additional technical data not previously seen by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and interested parties at the application stage. For these reasons, the amended Daylight & Sunlight Study was returned to the appellant. For the avoidance of doubt, in determining this appeal I have had regard to the Daylight & Sunlight Study submitted to the LPA at the application stage. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 10 Priory Road, with particular regard to daylight, sunlight, and visual impact. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises 8 Priory Road (No 8), a 2-storey detached dwelling situated on a long narrow plot in a residential area. Priory Road mainly consists of detached and semi-detached dwellings constructed in the late 19th century, although several infill plots contain modern dwellings. 5. 10 Priory Road (No 10), a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling with accommodation in its roof space, is positioned immediately to the east of the site. No 10 benefits from a long rear projection which includes a kitchen / diner with bifold doors on its rear elevation which lead on to a patio (referred to as window 1 in the Daylight & Sunlight Study). A set of glazed doors, which face the site, serve a kitchen / diner 1 Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England. For appeals relating to applications dated on or before 31 March 2026 Appeal Decision 6002680 2 (referred to as window 2 in the Daylight & Sunlight Study). A set of windows serve the kitchen section of the kitchen / diner, which also face towards the site (referred to as window 3 in the Daylight & Sunlight Study). 6. The proposed development would extend No 8 to the rear at ground floor level. Above this part, a first floor extension would be created. This would introduce a mass of built form in close proximity to windows 2 and 3 at No 10, which face the site. 7. Due to the presence of the bifold doors (window 1) and the wide set of glazed doors facing the site (window 2), the proposed development would be unlikely to appreciably reduce the amount of daylight received to the kitchen / diner. Window 3 currently experiences a loss of sunlight for part of the day due to the position of No 8 immediately to the west of No 10. Given the depth of the proposed first floor element of the proposed development, which would span across the side of window 3 in an elevated position, it is likely that the proposed development would cause further overshadowing to these windows for part of the day. 8. The first diagram provided in the Sunlight: Analysis section of the Daylight & Sunlight Study under consideration in this appeal appears to only show the position of the sun on the 1st July, which is a favourable time of the year with respect to sunlight. The other diagrams within that section do not state the day of the year that the diagrams have been modelled for. Nevertheless, considering the orientation, depth, and height of the proposed development, and the path of the sun, it would only likely have an noticeably reducing effect on the amount of sunlight received to window 3 in the late afternoon. As such, the proposed development’s reducing effect on sunlight received to those windows would not adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of No 10 to a significant degree. 9. Of greater concern is the effect of the proposed development on No 10’s north- facing window at ground floor level, which serves a study / home office. The Daylight & Sunlight Study under consideration in this appeal does not show this window in the 3D models presented. I observed that light to this window is currently heavily constrained by the tall side elevations of No 8 and No 10 which are present either side of the window. 10. The proposed development would traverse much of the area which currently provides an important source of daylight and sunlight to that window. Due to its depth, height, and proximity to that window, in all likelihood it would considerably reduce the amount of daylight received. Due to the orientation of the proposed development and the path of the sun, its reducing effect on sunlight to that window would likely be especially acute during the late afternoon, particularly in the winter. Considering that this room already suffers from a lack of daylight and sunlight for much of the day, in combination these factors would make the affected room much less pleasant to use, thereby undermining its utility as a study / home office. 11. I observed that No 8’s existing side elevation, which includes a rear projection at ground floor level, currently dominates the outlook from both window 3 at No 10 and the window which serves No 10’s study / home office (referred to above). Due to its depth, height, and siting in close proximity to those windows, the first floor part of the proposed development would greatly exacerbate this effect, appearing as a prominent, dominant, and overbearing feature in views from those windows. Appeal Decision 6002680 3 12. Thus, although No 8 would not extend as far north as the dwellings either side of the site, and the proposed development could be considered subservient to No 8 in design terms, the overly-dominant and overbearing nature of the proposed development as experienced by the occupiers of No 10 would undermine their enjoyment of the kitchen / diner and the study / home office. 13. Furthermore, due to its height, depth, and siting directly adjacent to part of the walkway which runs between No 10’s frontage and rear garden, the first floor part of the proposed development would markedly increase the sense of enclosure experienced by users of the walkway. This would substantially undermine its utility as an attractive route to and from the rear garden, and its use as a children’s play area. 14. I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 10, with particular regard to daylight, sunlight, and visual impact. It would conflict with part f. of Policy DM28 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023 – 2041 (adopted June 2025) (Local Plan Review) which provides that, amongst other things, an extension will be permitted where the proposal is not overbearing or of a form which would be detrimental to the amenity of nearby residents by virtue of loss of daylight and sunlight, and with parts a. and c. of Policy DM30 of the Local Plan Review which provides that, amongst other things, when considering the impact on the living conditions of existing residential dwellings, development proposals will be supported where there is no unacceptable harm in terms of any significant loss of daylight and/or sunlight to land and buildings and development resulting in an undue sense of enclosure and overbearing impact. Other Matters 15. I have had regard to the historic planning permission for a 2-storey extension at No 82. Apart from a brief reference to other 2-storey rear extensions in the street scene, the Officer’s Report provides no specific reasoning to explain their finding that the proposal would not raise any concerns of overshadowing. Their reasoning is not persuasive. Planning permission Ref 11/00200/HOUSE related to a single- storey extension, which is not directly comparable with the proposed development which includes development at first floor level. Neither of these permissions, which have now lapsed, alter my findings on the main issue above. 16. The appellant has referenced Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended), which in certain circumstances allows an extension of up to 8 metres in depth for a detached dwelling. However, paragraph A.1(g) of Class A restricts such development to a single-storey, meaning that such development would not be more harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No 10 than the proposed development under consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, this is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development. Other Considerations and Planning Balance 17. The proposed development would provide enlarged accommodation on site, which would improve the living conditions of the appellant and their family. As this would mainly bring benefits of a private nature, and it has not been demonstrated that a 2 06/01221/HOUSE Appeal Decision 6002680 4 less harmful scheme could not achieve the same aims, these benefits merit little weight in favour of the proposed development. Conversely, the proposed development would have an adverse impact upon the living conditions of the occupiers of No 10, in conflict with paragraph 135 f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. 18. The benefits of the proposed development would not be sufficient to outweigh the significant weight given to the conflict with the policies of the development plan cited on the main issue above. None of the relevant material considerations indicate that this appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Alexander O’Doherty INSPECTOR