“The proposal comprises of the addition of a single dwelling similar in size to that previously subject to outline planning approval as demonstrated by the indicative site layout plan could be provided whilst retaining adequate separation to the existing dwelling at Gillingham to avoid any significant harm to amenity by way of loss of outlook, overbearing impact, or loss of privacy. A single dwelling development will not give rise to unacceptable losses of daylight, sunlight or cause unreasonable overshadowing of neighbouring private open space areas. The development will provide adequate internal amenity for future occupiers, through the provision of a generous front and rear scheduled private garden areas, complying with the requirements of policy DM 3.13.”
“… We have applied the numerical tests laid down in the Building Research Establishment (BRE) "Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight 2022, 3rd Edition. The tests were undertaken using Right of Light Consulting's 3D point cloud survey undertaken with a Lecia RTC Scanner on13th June 2024 . We have attached our 3D images of the development and our clients property, photographic window key, overshadowing plots for the garden along with the relevant daylight and overshadowing results. The results confirm that the proposed development will have a very significant negative impact on our clients and their home. The assessment methodology and results are expanded upon below. … In our opinion, the main windows for our clients living room are located on the side elevation of their property. The combined size of these windows, along with their current very high levels of daylight, are critical to the provision of natural light within the living room. This is because the living room is a very deep room and heavily relies on light from the side elevation to maintain sufficient natural light to its central and main portion. The front window is heavily obstructed by the properties original garage building. Whilst the rear window is heavily restricted by a number of mature trees. The 'before' development results confirm that the side elevation windows receive significantly more light than the front and rear elevations which confirms their primary importance. Analysis Both windows 2 & 3 which serve the living room significantly fail the Vertical Sky Component test. The proposed development would reduce the Vertical Sky Component from 37% and 36.7% down to 16.1% and 12.6% for windows 2 & 3 respectively. This is very significantly below the BRE's twofold recommendation of 27% VSC combined with no greater reduction of more than 20% of its formerly enjoyed value. These figures represent a 56% and 66% reduction in formerly enjoyed light levels. In our opinion this amounts to a very harmful impact. The results also confirm that the garden will be overshadowed. This amounts to a loss of sunlight to approximately 16.15 m2, the majority of which is located to the rear patio area. This can be best visualised by referring to our Overshadowing diagram's attached to this letter. … Conclusion Given the very significant reduction in natural light, sense of enclosure and overdevelopment of the site, we respectfully request that the application be refused. If the applicants appoint their own expert, we would be pleased to share with them our survey data and 3D model for their independent review, or to facilitate any site surveys of their own. Also, if you would like to visit our clients property to better visualise the situation, our clients would welcome a meeting. Thank you for considering our clients concerns. We appreciate your judgement of these important matters and your commitment to ensuring the well-being and quality of life for all residents in the community.”
“… Diagrams and Distance Measurements The developer's assertion that our diagrams lack distance measurements is unfounded. We used the Building Research Establishment's (BRE) "Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight" (2022, 3rd Edition), which is a well-established and industry-standard methodology. The diagrams and overshadowing plots provided were generated from a 3D point cloud survey conducted with high-precision Lecia RTC equipment. This includes detailed spatial data that ensures accuracy. Furthermore, the distance between the proposed development and The Spinnery was accounted for in all the calculations we submitted. These diagrams and measurements are reliable, with precise distances being derived from professional survey data. Alleged Misplacement of the Proposed Development in the Survey The claim that the proposed development was incorrectly placed in our assessment is incorrect. As professionals in the field of daylight analysis, we took great care to ensure the accurate placement of the proposed structure in our 3D model based on site-specific data. If the developer believes there is an error, we would invite them to provide their evidence to demonstrate this alleged misplacement. We stand by the accuracy of the data and can make the underlying 3D model available for comparison with the applicant's plans. Calibration of Software and Equipment … These tools are regularly calibrated to ensure accuracy, and the results are reviewed by qualified professionals. The applicant has provided no evidence to support their suggestion that the equipment is faulty, and we would welcome any formal third-party verification of our data should they wish to challenge it. Sunlight and Overshadowing of the North-Facing Garden … In this case, the overshadowing calculations were based on the BRE's recommended methodology for assessing sunlight availability on the spring equinox (21st March), which is the standard approach. … Tree Blocking Window 3 The developer refers to a tree blocking Window 3 and implies that this justifies the reduction in daylight. While there is some existing obstruction, the proposed development significantly exacerbates the issue by further reducing the Vertical Sky Component (VSC) for this window from 36.7% to just 12.6%. The tree does not mitigate the impact of the development. Instead, it highlights the importance of preserving what limited daylight the property currently enjoys, which will be severely curtailed by the proposed structure. Conclusion In conclusion, the arguments presented by the developer do not address the core issues raised in our objection. The proposed development will result in a significant reduction of daylight to the main living areas of The Spinnery and cause considerable overshadowing of the garden, particularly in critical areas like the patio. Additionally, the concerns regarding the road access have not been adequately addressed. For these reasons, we continue to request that this application be refused. We remain open to sharing our data with the developer's experts and welcome any further discussion or site visits you deem necessary. Thank you for your continued attention to this important matter.”
“… Impact on Neighbour Amenity Policy DM3.13 of the SNLP relates to the protection of the amenity of neighbouring uses. Whilst the proposal is of two-storey nature, this is of a typical built form, size, and footprint to the surrounding dwellings and is setback from the highway, reducing its visual impact and prominence in the street scene. This new dwelling also has a sufficient distance to the boundaries on both the east and the west of the property, and as such this will not cause any overbearing impacts on neighbouring amenity and is acceptable. With regard to overshadowing, this proposal is seeking to use a hipped roof and therefore the eaves height is lower on all elevations of the property. In addition to this, there is a gap between the boundary and the proposed dwelling on the boundaries and therefore is not in close proximity to any neighbouring properties. Therefore, the risk of overshadowing is reduced and is minimal, thus is acceptable. It is noted that the neighbour adjacent to the proposal site has conducted a right to light survey to identify the potential overshadowing from the erection of the dwelling. This survey has however based the footprint of the dwelling on the boundary whereas the plans show there to be a distance of 1.5 metres between the boundary and the proposed dwelling. Given the distances involved, it is considered that there will be a suitable distance separating the two without causing a significant detrimental impact on overshadowing of the neighbouring property. … Conclusion In conclusion, this application has been assessed in the context of policies in the South Norfolk Local Plan and policy 7.5 of the Greater Norwich Plan that gives weight to considerations regarding self-build and custom-build dwellings. In this context, the application is considered acceptable in principle, design considerations are acceptable in the character of the area, and there will not be any adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity, highway safety, or ecology as a result of this proposal. As such, this proposal complies with the policies listed above from the South Norfolk Local Plan, the Greater Norwich Local Plan, and the National Planning Policy Framework. In light of the above, and subject to the imposed conditions below, the application is therefore recommended for approval. …”
“1) The decision was taken without taking into account all material considerations: there is no mention whatsoever in the OR of the Claimant's expert’s rebuttal report (dealing robustly with lay comments made by the applicants in response to the initial report), nor is there any analysis which would indicate that it had been taken into account and engaged with. Specifically, the OR a. Ignored the plotting of the buildings (which was correct in the Claimant's reports); b. Ignored the serious light impacts despite the calculations which were based on precision instruments and well established analysis; c. Ignored the rebuttal report.”
“… (2) In dealing with an application for planning permission or permission in principle the authority shall have regard to— (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, … (c) any other material considerations.”
“32. In a claim for judicial review, the Claimant must establish a public law error on the part of the decision-maker. The exercise of planning judgment and the weighing of the various issues are matters for the decision-maker and not for the Court: Seddon Properties Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment(1981) 42 P & CR 26 . A legal challenge is not an opportunity for a review of the planning merits: Newsmith v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions[2001] EWHC 74 (Admin).”
“30. The starting-point for consideration of Ground 2 is the well known dictum of Lord Hoffmann in Tesco Stores Ltd[1995] 1 WLR 795 at paragraph 57: “If there is one principle of planning law more firmly settled than any other, it is that matters of planning judgment are within the exclusive province of the local planning authority or the Secretary of State”
“99. In R (Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster)) v North Yorkshire County Council[2020] PTSR 221 the Supreme Court endorsed the legal tests in Derbyshire Dales District Council[2010] 1 P & CR 19 and CREEDNZ Inc v Governor General[1981] 1 NZLR 172 , 182 which must be satisfied where it is alleged that a decision-maker has failed to take into account a material consideration. It is insufficient for a claimant simply to say that the decision-maker did not take into account a legally relevant consideration. A legally relevant consideration is only something that is not irrelevant or immaterial, and therefore something which the decision-maker is empowered or entitled to take into account. But a decision-maker does not fail to take a relevant consideration into account unless he was under an obligation to do so. Accordingly, for this type of allegation it is necessary for a claimant to show that the decision-maker was expressly or impliedly required by the legislation (or by a policy which had to be applied) to take the particular consideration into account, or whether on the facts of the case, the matter was so ‘obviously material’, that it was irrational not to have taken it into account.”
“(1) Development should ensure a reasonable standard of amenity reflecting the character of the local area. In all cases particular regard will be paid to avoiding: a. … b. Loss of day light, overshadowing and overbearing impact c. … Planning permission will be refused where proposed development would lead to an excessive or unreasonable impact on existing neighbouring occupants and the amenity of the area or a poor level of amenity for new occupiers.”