Appeal 3293223

I dismiss the appeal.

The main issues are the effect of the development on a) the character of the dwelling and the surrounding area; and b) the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties in respect of light and overbearing impact.

The appeal site relates to a two-storey, semi-detached house sited on [address] with a driveway and off-street parking to the front. The local area is predominantly residential in nature.

The proposal would introduce a substantial rear extension to the house that would span the entire width of the plot. The sheer size of the addition would significantly increase the footprint of the ground floor and appear disproportionate in comparison to the host property, competing with its overall scale. Its boxy and monolithic design would be clearly visible from the patio areas and rear gardens of dwellings to either side, appearing discordant and harmful to the character of the property and the locality.

I acknowledge those other matters that have been advanced in support of the development; the proposal results in improvements to the layout of the dwelling to meet living requirements assisting in the provision of care for the elderly and disabled, the scheme would adhere to Secured by Design Guidance (March 2019), and no objections have been received from local residents. However, none of these points could justify the harm I have identified above. _________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________

I conclude that the scheme would result in harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area. It would be contrary to Policy CS 14 of the London Borough of Merton LDF Core Planning Strategy July 2011 (CS), [name] D2 and DM D3 of the [name] and Policies Plan 2014 (SPP) and Policies D3 and D4 of the London Plan 2021 (LP), which cumulatively seek to secure new development of acceptable scale and appearance.

The substantial rearward projection and excessive height of the proposal would significantly increase the size and scale of development facing the neighbouring units at 88 and [address], thereby adding material bulk to the built form in close proximity to the common boundaries.

In doing so, this would create a considerable extent of development which would result in a loss of light to, and dominate the outlook from, the rear openings of nos. 88 and 92 and the environment in and around their patios and back gardens. This would be in a manner which would be overbearing and oppressive, and materially worse than the existing state of affairs.

I conclude that the scheme would be injurious to the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties in relation to light and overbearing impact. This would fail to meet Policy CS 14 of the CS, [name] D2 and DM D3 of the SPP and Policies D3 and D4 of the LP, which seeks to ensure that development does not prejudice the environment or amenity of the occupiers of adjacent properties.

Based on the foregoing and all matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.