Appeal 3273227

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision;

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building;

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans: Block 01A; [name] floor [name] 001; Elevations – Front & [name] 002; Section – Existing 003; Plans – [name] P010; Plans – [name] P020; Elevations – Front & [name] P050; Section – Proposed P070.

The description of the proposed development is taken from the application form. In its decision notice, the Council describes the development as “Construction of first floor front extension and first floor rear extension. Hip to gable side roof extension including raising the ridge of the existing roof. New roof lantern and bi-fold glazed doors to existing single storey rear extension.”

Since the submission of the appeal, the National Planning Policy Framework from 2019 has been replaced, with the new version being published in July 2021 (the Framework). Amongst other changes, Section 12 has been amended to reflect the new National Model Design Code. Nevertheless the character and protection aims of both local policy and the Framework are similar and so neither party has been prejudiced by this change in policy circumstances.

The Council’s decision notice provides four reasons for refusal. Nonetheless, I consider that reasons 1, 2 and 3 consider similar grounds such that there are two main issues in the appeal, these being the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the existing building and the surrounding area and on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook.

The site is an end of terrace dwelling located on a short run of two storey dwellings with tiled and hipped roofs. This short terrace is set between dwellings within the residential street of [address]. There is a variety of styles and materials used, with alterations apparent as seen from the street. The appeal site is set back from the road, and set behind the principal elevation of no. 39A, which is of different design and materials, and with a roofline which stands above no. 40. The road rises uphill as travelling from north to south, and this change in levels is apparent in the stepped ridgelines and roofs which can be seen throughout the street.

No. 40 currently features a small infill porch and set back first floor extension to the side. The proposed development would introduce an extension above this porch area, flush with the existing front elevation. Whilst the amendment to the roof would create a change to the end of the terrace, the resultant step in roof levels is not uncommon in [address] and the surrounding area and so would not cause harm to the character and appearance to the host dwelling nor the terrace. I note that the opposing end of the terrace (no.43) has a similar relationship with no. 44. Whilst these two properties are not attached, there is a difference in roof height and also type.

The proposals include a rear infill element and extension to the first floor. Whilst there may be no full width first floor extensions within the wider terrace parade, as observed by the Council, this alone does not persuade me that the development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the local area. This element of the proposal would not be easily seen from the public domain, and even so, the proposal would not protrude beyond the existing first floor extension which exists.

The new extension has been well designed and by using matching materials would complement the character of the house and as such the local area. I consider that the alterations to the roof height would ensure a positive contribution to the varied and distinctive character of the area, and also has regard to the changing levels of the street as it rises uphill.

I have had regard to the above considerations in the contexts of the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) and the Local Plan1 and Core 1 1 Waltham Forest Local Plan – Development Management Policies (October 2013) Strategy2 policies CS2, DM4 and DM29, which amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

The outlook from the first floor is toward the garden, and includes the existing extensions at the appeal site. The development would introduce a further extension, including the closest wall which would be angled away from the neighbour at no. 41 and would not protrude any further forward than the existing first floor here. The appellant has provided a diagram which provides an illustration of the extent of outlook available to the closest first floor window at no. 41. This demonstrates that the development would not breach the outlook and I have no further evidence to demonstrate to the contrary. I noted that the window is not located immediately adjacent to the proposed development, thus allowing for views as shown in the diagrams. The proposed development would be experienced in the context of the existing development at the appeal site, and the angle and height of the proposed addition would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of no. 41.

I have had regard to the guidance in the Council’s Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Guidance3 (SPG), in particular the guidance for the outlook which confirms that the Council will ensure that extensions would not harm privacy and outlook. Taking into account the above, I consider that the proposed development would not be contrary to this guidance. The proposal would therefore accord with Local Plan Policies DM4, DM29 and DM32 and [name] CS2, CS13 and CS15 which expect development to, amongst other things, protect the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

The proposals would accord with the National Planning Policy Framework which requires, at paragraph 130, development to be visually attractive and sympathetic to local character to create high quality buildings and spaces.

In addition to the standard timescale for implementation condition, it is necessary to attach a condition confirming the approved drawings in the interests of certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, I have also imposed a condition to ensure that the external materials would match the existing.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.