Appeal 3310491

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of single storey rear extension projecting 3.3m beyond the main rear wall with a flat roof including wildflower green roof of max 3.0m height at [site address] , Crofton Park, Lewisham, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/22/127803, dated 29 July 2022, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years of the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 04; 05 rev B; 06; 07; 08.

No development above ground shall commence until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Once approved, development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants with particular reference to outlook and light.

The proposed development would sit on modestly higher land and extend near to the boundary with [address]. While it would be deeper and taller than the structure it replaces, the closest window serving No 90 is obscure glazed and consequently already has a limited outlook. The other windows, at no 90, are reasonably separated from the boundary to ensure an acceptable outlook and prevent any adverse overbearing impacts to the neighbouring occupants when viewed from these windows.

The proposed development would also be next to a constrained area of hardstanding at No 90. This hardstanding links the back door to No 90’s garden area, which is sited beyond the rear wall of No 90’s existing conservatory. Given this existing layout, the proposed development would also not appear overbearing or unacceptably effect the outlook enjoyed from the garden area of No 90.

For the reasons given above in regard to No 90, and the limited projection beyond the rear wall of [address], it has not been clearly demonstrated that any unacceptable loss of sunlight or daylight would occur to neighbouring properties; or any loss of outlook to No 86.

The Council’s Alterations and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document 2019 (the SPD), at paragraph 4.2.3, sets general limits to extensions. I acknowledge these general rules, however, I have also considered the site-specific layout of the neighbouring dwellings in respect to the proposed development. Taking these local factors into account, as set out above, paragraph 4.2.3 of the SPD does not alter my findings on this main issue.

The proposed development would therefore not have an unacceptably harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupants with particular reference to outlook and light. The proposal would therefore accord with the relevant provisions of Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021; Policy 15 of the [name] 2011; Policies 30 and Policy 31 of the Lewisham Development Management Local Plan 2014; Policy BE2 'Extensions and Alterations to [name] of the Hopcroft Neighbourhood Plan 2022; the SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework. These, amongst other things, address the need for high quality design therefore respecting the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

The appeal site is modestly higher than the adjoining neighbour [address]. The Council also acknowledge that rear extensions are a common feature in the area. The depth and height of the proposed development responds to the dimensions of existing rear extensions in the local area and while modestly deeper and taller, it would not be insensitive to the height or proportions of adjoining properties or existing buildings in the vicinity. On this basis, the proposed development would be in accordance with Policy BE2 (iv) of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Reference has been made to a fallback position, however, given my overall conclusion there is no need for me to consider this matter further.

I have attached conditions on the time limit for development and plans in the interests of certainty. The materials condition is also necessary to ensure that the development is in keeping with the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons above, the proposed development would comply with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no sufficiently weighted material considerations that would indicate a decision otherwise. The appeal should, therefore, be allowed.