Appeal 3357580

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for part two storey side extension and single storey rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 1192/24, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: 1037_S(P10) _200, 1037_S(P10)_100, 1037_S(P10)_101, 1037_S(P10)_102, 1037 _S(P10)_001 [name].

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

An amended site location and block plan drawing reference 1037_S(P10)_001 [name] has been submitted, superseding drawing reference 1037_S(P10)_001, has been submitted to resolve a discrepancy between the proposed floor plans and block plan with regards to the footprint of the proposed development. The appeal has been determined on the basis of the submitted drawings together with the amended plan.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions for the occupiers of the neighbouring property at no [address], with particular regard to light and outlook. Appeal Planning Officer APP/W5780/D/24/3357580

[address] is a verdant suburban residential road, characterised by two storey semi-detached dwellings of a similar architectural style. The appeal property is set further back within its plot than the neighbouring dwelling at no 14, with the neighbouring property set at a slightly lower level. The appeal site slopes down to the rear from the dwelling, featuring a raised terrace and steps leading down into the garden. The boundary treatment along the common boundary with no 14 consists of 1.[address] boarded fencing and trellis, with established planting.

The neighbouring property at No. 14 possesses a conservatory situated in close proximity to the common boundary. I have had regard to the Council’s concerns over the impact on light to the neighbouring property, and I accept that the proposed extension due to its size and position would result in some reduction of existing light to the conservatory. However, the orientation and scale of the appeal dwelling from the conservatory would already have a significant impact on the availability of light from this direction. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the orientation of the conservatory is such that it would continue to access significant levels of light through the extensive glazing on its roof, rear and side elevations. Therefore, I am not persuaded that any loss of light caused by the proposal would, having regard to the context of the proposed development, result in an unacceptable impact on the occupants at no 14.

Turning to the effect on outlook, given the setback and elevated position of the appeal dwelling in comparison to the neighbouring property at no 14, the dwelling already frames in part the existing outlook from the rear of no 14. Nevertheless, the neighbouring garden is of substantial length, extending well beyond the rear elevation of the appeal dwelling.

The addition of the proposed extensions would have only a comparatively limited additional impact on any peripheral sense of enclosure, particularly considering the flat roof to the single storey element, the staggered positioning of the relative footprints of the extensions on the boundary, and the design and position of the two-storey extension in relation to the bulk of the host dwelling. Whilst the single-storey extension would still exceed the height of the existing boundary treatment, it would be set further away from the boundary and taken in combination with a flat roof and a chamfered glass slope roof on the sides with a reduced eaves height, the bulk and visual impact would be minimised to an acceptable degree.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would have an acceptable impact on the living conditions for the occupiers of the neighbouring property at no [address], having regard to light and outlook. The proposed development would comply with Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (adopted 2018) and the guidance set out in the [name] (2019). These policies and guidance seek amongst other matters to protect the amenities of neighbouring occupiers through high quality design and ensure that side extensions are not overbearing or cause a significant loss of outlook or an increased sense of enclosure.

I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and in Appeal Planning Officer APP/W5780/D/24/3357580 the interests of proper planning. Although the Council has also suggested the use of a condition requiring external finishes in matching materials, this is unnecessary as this intention is annotated to the proposed plans which will form part of the approved documents attached to the planning permission.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.