Appeal 3296185

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development proposed is taken from the application form. The decision notice describes the development proposed as “Demolition of existing single storey rear projection. Construction of a single storey rear extension including roof lantern at ground floor level. Replacement of existing door and three windows to ground floor side elevation with one window.”

Prior approval was previously sought for a single storey extension1 and was not given.

An application for a single storey rear extension2 was previously refused.

The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address], with regards to outlook, daylight and sunlight. 1 Reference: 202640. 2 Reference: 201873.

The appeal property is a semi-detached two storey dwelling. It is set back from the road behind a parking area and has a long narrow garden to the rear. The dwelling has a single storey rear extension.

It is located in a residential area characterised by the presence of a range of house types, including semi-detached two storey dwellings and two and three storey blocks of flats.

During my site visit, I observed there to be small gardens and/or parking areas to the front of dwellings along [address] and long gardens to the rear. I also noted that many houses in the area have been altered and/or extended and that such changes largely appear in keeping with their surroundings.

It is proposed to demolish a ground floor rear extension and replace it with a much larger – wider, longer and taller – single storey extension. Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, the appellant states that the proposed eaves height would be 2.7 metres and this, combined with the long rear projection of the proposal would result in an insubordinate extension, out of balance with the appearance of the host property. 10.The harmful impact of the above would be exacerbated as a result of the width of the proposed extension, whereby it would project considerably beyond the width of the existing outrigger. This would result in the proposal appearing unduly bulky, leading it to appear as an awkward and incongruous addition. 11.Taking the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy CS15 of the Core Strategy3; to Policies DM4 and DM29 of the Local Plan DMP4; and to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document “[name]. Alterations” (2010), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character. Living conditions 12.The proposed rear extension would project to the rear along the boundary with Number [address], beyond the rear elevation of that dwelling. 13.During my site visit, I noted that patio doors look out to towards a sitting area in No 52’s rear garden alongside this boundary. The orientation of No 52, to the south west of the appeal property, is such that the proposal would not result in any significant harm in respect of sunlight or daylight. However, I find that a combination of the height and rearward projection of the proposal would result in an extension that would draw the eye and appear as a dominant feature when seen from the rear of No 52. 14.The overall scale of the proposal means that the proposal would appear to “loom” along the rear boundary to an overbearing extent when seen from 3 Reference: Waltham Forest Local Plan Core Strategy (2013). 4 Reference: Waltham Forest Local Plan Development [name] (2013). 2 No 52. The harmful impact of this would only be mitigated to a very small degree by the presence of a hedgerow along the boundary. 15.Taking this into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No [address], with regards to outlook, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policies CS2, CS13 and CS15 of the [name]; to Policies DM4, DM29 and DM32 of the Local Plan DMP; and to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document “[name]. Alterations” (2010), which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity.