Appeal 3361509

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

The Council made its decision using the policies of the [name] and Policies Plan (adopted 2014) and the [name] (adopted 2011), despite a new local plan having been adopted by the date of decision. It has confirmed that the relevant policies of the Merton Local Plan 2024-2037/38 (adopted 2024) for this appeal are D12.1, D12.3, and D12.4, which replace the policies of the Sites and Policies Plan and [name] referred to in the reasons for refusal. The appellant has had the opportunity to respond to this change in policy circumstances, and I have taken their response into account in my

The Council’s second reason for refusal related to the living conditions of the occupants of [address]. Due to the lack of clarity over its internal layout, I attended this property as part of my site visit.

The appellant has submitted a [name], Sunlight and [name] alongside their appeal statement. However, this document was not part of the application submission, and the Council and other relevant parties have not had the opportunity to comment on this evidence. It has not been demonstrated that there were extraordinary circumstances for a late submission, and it would prejudice interested parties were I to accept this late evidence. Therefore, I have not taken this information into account when making my

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and on the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with particular regard to light, outlook, and privacy.

The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling that appears prominently on this portion of [address], due to its greater height compared with neighbouring bungalows. The lower roofs of these bungalows mean the side elevations of the appeal property are clearly visible in public views from the street. Nevertheless, the existing single storey extension at the rear of the property is obscured from public views by the bulk of the main building.

At the front of most properties on [address], windows feature thick uPVC frames and are arranged in a bay at ground floor level. Alongside these similarities, there is significant variation in the glazing arrangement of windows, as windowpanes are divided in contrasting styles throughout the street. The existing uPVC windows on the façade of the appeal property, including those at ground floor level in the characteristic bay formation, display a unique glazing arrangement that is not commonly found elsewhere on the street.

The windows of the appeal property would be replaced with grey uPVC windows. On the front elevation, the glazing arrangement of the proposed windows would be of a different style to the existing, including a large picture window at first floor level. Although the appearance of a large paned window would be unusual for the street, the design would not be harmful given the existing variation in glazing arrangement in the area. Furthermore, the replacement windows would still be fitted within the existing structural openings and the characteristic bay formation would be retained. For these reasons, the replacement windows would respond positively to the site’s context and character despite their different appearance.

The proposed two-storey rear extension would have a higher ridge height than the main building, so would be visible above the main building in public views from the street. Although in principle increasing the scale and height of the property is not inappropriate given the variation in the street, the proposed design would result in the rear extension appearing disproportionately large and failing to be subordinate to the main building.

This additional height and bulk would not be readily screened by the proposed pitched roof over the existing side extension. The pitched roof form would complement the existing dwelling, however the dark tiles proposed would be in clear contrast to, and would stand out as markedly different from, the host property.

The proposed rear extension would also feature dark roof tiles and dark brick. At the rear this contemporary style would have very little impact, as it would only be visible from neighbouring properties. However, from the front the dark tiles and a band of dark brick would be clearly visible in public views due to the height of the rear extension. These materials would appear in stark contrast to the white render and orange/red roof tiles of the main building, which are not proposed to be Appeal Planning Officer APP/T5720/D/25/3361509 changed. Although the appellant affirms that this would be intentional to create a distinction between old and new development, the dark materials would appear incongruous and unsympathetic to the host building. Given the degree of contrast and their elevated position, the darker materials would not recede into the background or create a coherent appearance as the appellant suggests. There are other properties with grey tiles in the area however they are distinct from those with red tiles, and I am not aware of any where the two are combined on one property.

Consequently, the height and scale of the proposed rear extension and the materials of the side roof and rear extension would not respond positively to their context or achieve the highest standards of design as required by the Local Plan and would harm the character and appearance of the area. This harm would not be outweighed by the more sympathetic roof form proposed over the side extension.

I have been directed by the appellant to examples of approved applications for development on [address] for enlargements or replacement buildings where increased size and scale were found acceptable. I do not have full details of how those were assessed; however as I have found above, an increase in size would not necessarily be harmful depending on the design. It is the relationship of the proposals to the host dwelling that results in harm in this case. Therefore, those examples do not justify the harm I have identified.

Consequently, while elements of the proposed development would not be harmful, the size and scale of the proposed two-storey rear extension and the materials used on that and the roof over the existing side extension would harm the character and appearance of the area. These elements would therefore conflict with Policies D12.1, D12.3 and D12.4 of the Local Plan, insofar as they seek to achieve high-quality design that respects its surroundings.

The Council has also concluded that the proposed development would be contrary to the London Plan (adopted 2021) Policies D1 and D4, which have a strategic focus on London’s form, character and capacity for growth, and delivering good design respectively. However, I have not been directed to the relevant part of these policies, and they have therefore not been determinative in my

During my visit to [address], I noted that an internal wall divides the lounge from the dining room. This wall, which was not marked on the floor plan provided to me by the appellant, means that the side window facing in the direction of the rear of the appeal site is the sole window of this habitable room.

The appeal property, its existing single storey rear projection to the rear of the garage and the boundary fence create a moderate sense of enclosure from this window and limit sunlight reaching the lounge. Although the lounge is connected to the kitchen through an archway, borrowed light from the kitchen is minimal and I saw that the lounge was dimly lit during my visit, even though it took place in the early afternoon in summer.

The single storey element of the proposed rear extension would be taller and deeper than the existing rear projection, and although set away from the boundary Appeal Planning Officer APP/T5720/D/25/3361509 with No 4 the two-storey element would be significantly taller than the existing single storey rear extension. In combination, the proposed rear extensions would be a dominant and overbearing feature in the outlook from the lounge window and would significantly increase the existing sense of enclosure and further limit the already restricted outlook from this window. To a lesser extent, the increased height and depth would also further reduce light to the lounge. Therefore, the proposed rear extension would further reduce the already limited outlook and light for the lounge of No 4, such that it would diminish the enjoyment of that habitable space, to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupants of No 4.

Although not referenced in the description of development, the proposed plans show a new patio area associated with the proposed rear extension, which would be higher than the existing patio. The tall fence along the shared boundary screens most views from the rear patio of the appeal site toward the rear windows of No 4 and its rear garden, however views down into the garden are possible from first floor bedroom windows. The height of the proposed rear patio would allow for clear views over the fence to the rear lounge window of No 4, resulting in a loss of privacy, to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupants of No 4.

The appellant suggests that raising the fence panels would mitigate any privacy issues between the properties. The suggested increase to the height of the fence could potentially resolve the identified privacy issues, given that it would match the proposed height increase of the patio. However, a fence of that height may well require planning permission, and is not part of the proposal before me. A taller fence could also have a further impact on light to, and outlook from, the lounge of No 4. Furthermore, securing such an amendment by condition would deprive interested parties of the ability to comment on the change. Therefore, this alternative cannot reasonably be secured by condition.

Consequently, overall, the proposed development would result in significant harm to the living conditions of the occupants of No 4 with regard to light, outlook, and privacy. It would therefore conflict with Policies D12.3 and D12.4 of the Local Plan, which require that acceptable light, privacy and outlook are available to existing occupants and that development does not significantly impact neighbouring amenity through overlooking.

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

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and agree with the reasoning and recommendation. On that basis the appeal is dismissed.