Appeal 3284969

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of a single storey rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/EPF/1534/21, dated 28 May 2021, and the following plans: TQRQM20299183750343; TQRQM20299183557969; [name]; [name]; [name]; [name]; [name] 01 – FOUNDATION; [name] 02 – [name]; and CROSS SECTION – BEAMS & COLUMNS.

The description of the development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. The form confirms that the development has been completed and thus planning permission is sought retrospectively. I have determined the appeal on that basis. However, I have omitted the reference to the development being retrospective in the formal decision as such wording is superfluous.

The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) was revised on 20 July

It replaces the version from 2019 that the Council considered when it determined the application. There are few differences between the two versions of the Framework regarding the specific issues in dispute for this appeal, and so it has not been necessary to seek the views of the parties on this matter.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 126 and [address], with particular regard to outlook.

The site includes a mid-terrace dwelling with a rear garden that is bordered by fencing and vegetation. The extension subject to this appeal features a dual pitched but relatively shallow roof and is sited on slightly higher land than much of the rear garden at No 128. The adjacent properties at Nos 126 and 130 feature single storey projections that are set up slightly compared to most of their rear gardens in a similar manner.

While the extension is sited close to and is longer and taller than the neighbouring projections, it is nevertheless a single storey addition that does not protrude beyond or above them excessively. Adequate outward views from the neighbours’ rear rooms have been retained. The extension encloses only a small proportion of the gardens near the dwellings. Outlook from most of the gardens is unaffected by the development. Views beyond the boundaries and toward the sky are achievable with both the development and relatively large amounts of vegetation in situ to the rear of the properties. The extension does not affect outlook to the extent that it is overbearing. Therefore, the development does not have an unacceptable harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 126 and 130 in respect of outlook.

Additionally, the extension’s size and the positions of its fenestration are such that its impacts on the neighbours’ light receipt and privacy levels are limited. I also note that the Council does not object to the extension in these respects.

The development does not significantly adversely affect the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 126 and [address]. It accords with Policy DBE9 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan 1998, which requires that development does not result in excessive losses of amenity. It also complies with Policy DM9 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan [name] 2017 and Chapter 12 of the Framework, which have similar objectives.

An interested party contends that the development is unsightly. However, the Council does not object to the development on this basis. I consider that the extension is a proportionate addition to the dwelling. I have no compelling reasons to reach an alternate view to the Council on this matter.

It is also purported that the development has structurally compromised the adjacent properties, the appellant did not notify the neighbours of the development prior to construction commencing and that party wall agreements were not completed. However, these are private matters to be resolved between the parties involved and are not directly relevant to the planning merits of the development. Furthermore, the fact that the development was constructed without permission is not a reason in itself to dismiss the appeal.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. As the development is retrospective no planning conditions are necessary.