Appeal 3326406

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring property [address].

The application site is located in a residential area, the established pattern of development in the area is such that the majority of properties are set in terrace rows on long streets. Properties on corner plots are mostly semi-detached and set at an angle in roughly triangular plots. The appeal property is on the end of a terrace of four properties, neighbouring property [address] is on a corner plot and is angled to face the corner of [address] and [address]. As a result, its rear elevation partially faces the boundary of the appeal property. The appeal property has a two storey side extension and a single storey flat roofed extension on the rear. Although not indicated on the submitted plans, [address] also has a two storey extension on its side elevation. The boundary between the appeal property and [address] is marked by a high close boarded timber fence.

The proposed development would form a continuation of the existing single storey flat roof extension on the rear elevation. The extension would be angled in order to accommodate the line of the boundary, running in close proximity to it. Taking in to account the existing extensions, and the layout of the appeal property and [address], they have a constrained relationship as existing. The proposed extension would further extend development adjacent to the boundary, close to the rear elevation of the neighbouring property. The existing timber fence is not sufficient to mitigate the impact of the extension as it would extend significantly above it. As such, the extension would have a harmful impact on the outlook from [address]. It is acknowledged that the existing extension has some impact on the neighbouring property in terms of loss of daylight and overshadowing. However, due to the close proximity to the boundary, and its orientation, the extension would exacerbate the existing harmful impact on neighbouring properties in terms of loss of daylight and overshadowing.

In support of the appeal, my attention was drawn to other properties in the area that have already been extended in a similar manner to that now proposed. I do not have details of the circumstances that led to these developments being accepted. Based on the evidence before me, and my own observation, the examples provided include three properties on [address] which are on or adjacent to corner plots. The extensions on 14 and [address] are adjoining, and this arrangement mitigates the impact on each neighbour. The other example, [address], appears to have been extended to the side and rear. However, the neighbouring property [address] is significantly set back from the boundary.

Further examples were provided along [address]; however, these properties are on a straight section of the street and are side by side. In this instance the angle between the appeal property and the neighbouring property is such that the harmful impact of the extension on the neighbouring property is heightened as the rear windows partially face the extension. Therefore, the examples provided are not a direct parallel to the appeal proposal in respect of siting and their relationship with neighbouring properties. In any case, I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

For the reasons stated above I conclude that the proposed extension would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. As such the development is contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan, BP8 and BP11 of the Barking and Dagenham Development Plan Document and the supporting [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document, as well as Policies DMD1 and DMD6 of the Barking and Dagenham Draft Local Plan. Taken together these policies seek that development should provide sufficient daylight and sunlight to new and surrounding housing (D6) and maintain residential amenity (BP11).

I understand the wishes of the appellant to maximise the use of available space, and their enjoyment of the property, by extending it further. However, such personal circumstances carry very little weight.

The absence of harm in terms of character and appearance is a neutral factor which weighs neither for nor against a proposal.

The appeal is dismissed.