Appeal 3290739

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: i) Neighbours’ living conditions; and ii) The character and appearance of the building and the local area.

[site address] is a very narrow, deep plan detached house set within a residential area, with other dwellings and their gardens to both sides and the rear. The house at No 98 fills its plot so completely that it has no usable external space. The proposal would create a first floor level roof terrace at the back, by enclosing an existing flat roof section.

This is a tightly developed area on the inside of a sharply angled street junction, so that neighbouring properties are very close together. Although the screen would be obscure glass rather than masonry or timber, it would still create an almost 2 storey height structure, looming over the directly adjoining gardens of neighbours. As proposed it would go the full depth of the existing flat roof, making it an overbearing feature in views from these gardens. Without it, however, people using the roof terrace would have very close range views of their neighbours’ gardens and windows from an elevated position, intruding greatly on their privacy. Either way, the impact on neighbours’ living conditions would be distinctly harmful.

I conclude that the proposal to enclose the whole of the roof for use as a terrace would unduly harm neighbours’ living conditions in terms of either loss of outlook or loss of privacy. It would therefore conflict with the aims of London Plan (LP) Policy D3, and Sites and Policies Plan (SPP) Policies DMD2 and DMD3, to deliver appropriate outlook, privacy and amenity.

No 98, perhaps due to its prior history as an office building, is of a more contemporary design than the surrounding residential dwellings. The inclusion of a glazed screen with steel railings would not look out of place in this context. It would only be seen in glimpsed views from [address]. Although it would be clearly visible from [address] to the rear, the existing building would be in the background in these views, so that the contemporary design and materials would not look out of place.

I conclude that the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the building or the local area. In this respect it accords with the aims of [name] D3 and D4, Core Planning Strategy Policy CS14 and [name] DMD2 and DMD3, to ensure that development is of a high quality that respects, reinforces and enhances local character, with extensions complementing both the building and the wider setting.

I sympathise with the appellant’s wish to provide outdoor amenity space for this house, particularly in the wake of the recent lockdowns. Policies, including SPP Policy DMD2, seek to ensure adequate provision of outdoor amenity space for dwellings and No 98 has none. This is an important issue, but is insufficient justification for this proposal due to the degree of harm identified.

The overriding consideration here is the effect on neighbours’ living conditions. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should not succeed.