Appeal 3331527

The appeal is dismissed.

Access to the appeal site was not possible when I visited. I am however satisfied that viewing the property from the street together with the information submitted with the application and appeal are sufficient for me to adequately assess the proposal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal property is a 3-storey, mid-20th century house with a single-storey rear wing and garden space to the rear and side. The latter area was dominated by a mature tree and occupied by a car port, both of which have been removed. The property is situated in a residential area, containing a mix of apartment buildings and houses. At the time of my visit the property was vacant and in a poor state of repair.

There is a tall brick wall along the rear boundary of the site, beyond part of which is a small courtyard garden area associated with [address]. The side boundary comprises a standard height brick wall which forms the rear boundary of larger area of garden within the curtilage of No. [address]. It is evident that the upper parts of the appeal property are visible from the larger garden area and consequently the appeal property currently encloses this space to a degree.

The proposal would primarily comprise the erection of 2 additional floors above the rear wing and the construction of a part-single and part 2-storey extension to the side and rear of the house. The ground floor part of the latter would occupy the entirety of the space to the side of the existing house as well as extending to the rear boundary. The upper level would only be marginally set away from the side boundary shared with No. 103 and would extend along and above almost the full length of this boundary.

As the upper floor of the side addition would be to the north of the garden there would be a negligible impact on sunlight levels within the garden. However, due to its siting, height and size the second-floor element would enclose the garden resulting in a significant reduction in outlook from this space. I consider that this loss of outlook would be of a degree that would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 103.

I recognise that properties in the area have relatively small gardens which in some cases are severely enclosed, and that this is a feature of the character and appearance of the area. I also note that the proposal would respect the character of the area and adequately preserve the setting of the neighbouring conservation area. However, these factors do not outweigh the harm identified above.

For these reasons I conclude that the proposal fails to accord with Policy CL5 of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Local Plan (2019) which requires that all development ensures good living conditions for existing and neighbouring buildings and there is no harmful increase in the sense of enclosure to existing buildings and spaces, including neighbouring gardens.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail.