Appeal 3295863

The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, [name].4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for a single storey rear extension which would extend 6.00m beyond the rear wall of the existing dwelling, a maximum height of 3.00m and an eaves height of 3.00m at [site address] , Walthamstow [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of application Ref 220091, including the Site Location Plan; [name], Ref P01; [name], [name] P02; [name], Ref P03; and [name], Ref P04; and the details submitted with it pursuant to Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, paragraph A.4(2).

The relevant provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) do not require regard to be had to the development plan or supplementary guidance. Accordingly, I have had regard to those policies and any supplementary guidance cited in the decision notice only in so far as they are a material consideration relevant to matters relating to the main issues. They are not, in themselves, determinative.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the amenity of adjoining premises.

The appeal site comprises an end terrace dwelling. The proposed extension would be built along the shared boundaries with No’s 33 and 37 which are marked by fences to both sides. The proposal would extend to a significant length. However, the rear gardens of the appeal site and adjoining dwellings are long and the addition of a structure 1m above the existing fence line would not unduly alter the outlook from the rear elevations or garden areas of these properties. As such, while the proposal may be visible, outlook would not be unduly harmed for occupiers of these properties.

I note the objection from the occupier of No 33 was withdrawn during the appeal, although there are further concerns from the occupier of No 37 with regards to a loss of light. This is not in the reason for refusal in the decision notice, and there is minimal analysis of this in the Council’s officer report. From my observations, the host property and those adjoining are south facing. However, there would already be some shadowing caused by the existing boundary fences. An additional 1m in height along the shared boundaries would be unlikely to cause a significant loss of light and there is nothing before me to indicate this would be harmful.

Consequently, the proposed development would not be harmful to the amenity of the adjoining premises with regards to outlook or loss of light. As such it would accord with Policies DM4 and DM32 of the LP1 and CS13 of the CS2 which seek to protect the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties, among other things.

The appellant’s attention is drawn to the conditions and limitations imposed on the granting of prior approval within paragraph A.3 of the GPDO. These ensure the details of the proposal are adhered to.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval is granted.