Single storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 April 2026 by Richard Snow BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005473 38 Clifton Avenue, Peterborough PE3 6AY • 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 J Ahmed against the decision of Peterborough City Council. • The application Ref is 25/01429/HHFUL. • The development proposed is a single storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey side extension at 38 Clifton Avenue, Peterborough PE3 6AY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01429/HHFUL, 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 drawings labelled “Location Plan” (ref TQRQM25295141732794), “Existing and Proposed Block Plan” (001), “Existing Elevation and Floor Plan” (002 Rev A) and “Proposed Elevation and Floor Plan” (003 Rev A). 3) The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 4) The extension hereby permitted shall not be occupied until its side-facing windows have been fitted with obscured glazing to a minimum of Pilkington Level 3, and no part of those windows that is less than 1.7 metres above the floor in the room in which it is installed shall be capable of being opened. Once installed, the windows shall be retained as such thereafter. Preliminary Matters 2. The appeal is accompanied by a plan labelled “Proposed Elevation and Floor Plan” (003 Rev B). This plan is dated 23 February 2026, which post-dates the council’s decision on the application, and differs from the iteration of the plan labelled Rev A by proposing clear glazing above the obscured glazing in the proposed pantry and kitchen/dining room windows. 3. The Planning Appeals Procedure Guide makes it clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. From the dates on the plans, it is evident that the council’s decision on the application was based on Rev A of drawing no 003. Neither the council nor interested parties have had an opportunity to consider Appeal Decision 6005473 2 or comment on the revisions shown on Rev B. I have accordingly disregarded Rev B and based my decision on the plan labelled “Proposed Elevation and Floor Plan” (003 Rev A). 4. I noted at my site visit that the window shown on the proposed plan in the side elevation of the existing house, serving the sitting room, has now been installed using the permitted development rights of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). I observed that a clear glazed patio door exists in the side elevation of no 36 which, following the installation of the new window, allows inter-visibility between the properties. This relationship is now established and the impact of the sitting room window on the privacy of the occupiers of both properties can no longer be at issue. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of the appeal property and no 36 Clifton Avenue with particular reference to privacy, outlook and natural light. Reasons 6. The appeal property is a two-storey end-terrace dwelling within a street of similarly designed terraces. The area is solely residential in character. Access to the rear of four properties is available via a pedestrian alleyway between Nos 36 and 38. 7. The appeal proposal consists of a single storey extension to the rear of the property alongside the existing outrigger and single storey store/WC. It would provide for a pantry and enlarged kitchen/diner. Two windows and a back door are proposed on the side elevation and two rooflights are shown on the side facing lean-to roof. 8. In addition to the side-facing patio door, no 36 also has a ground-floor side window and a partially glazed back door facing the appeal property. Both are fitted with obscured glazing and are screened to a large extent by a brick boundary wall along the alleyway. The windows in the proposed extension would also be fitted with obscured glass. I find accordingly that there would not be detrimental harm to the privacy of the occupiers of no 36 through overlooking from the windows in the proposed extension. The proposed rooflights would be above head-height and would not give rise to any loss of privacy. 9. The extension would form a pantry and an enlarged kitchen/diner. Outlook from the existing kitchen window is already inherently restricted by the confined character of the enclosed rear yard. Whilst obscured glazing in the proposed windows would restrict outlook, the low profile of the extension means that the proposed rooflights would be very close to the activity within the kitchen/diner and so would provide good access to outlook, natural light and daylight. As such, I find that the proposal would not lead to unacceptable living conditions for occupiers of the appeal property. 10. Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposal would provide acceptable levels of privacy, outlook and natural light for occupiers of no 38 whilst maintaining the privacy of the occupiers of no 36. The proposal therefore accords with Policy LP17 of the Peterborough Local Plan 2016-2036 (2019) which, amongst other things, requires new development to prevent any unacceptable impact on the amenity of existing and nearby occupiers. Appeal Decision 6005473 3 Conditions 11. Having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance, in addition to the standard implementation condition, it is necessary in the interests of certainty, to define the plans with which the scheme should accord. I shall also require that facing materials used in the construction of the extension match those of the existing dwelling in the interests of the appearance of the property. To maintain the privacy of the occupiers of no 36, I shall include a condition similar to the one suggested by the council, to secure the use of obscured glazing. I have amended the council’s wording to require obscured glazing only in proposed windows, and to remove the requirement for the restricted opening of windows given that the opening casements would be over 1.7m from floor level and this would prevent unacceptable overlooking. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, the proposal would accord with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be allowed. Richard Snow INSPECTOR