Appeal 3370809

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effects of the proposal on: (i) the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area, and (ii) the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to privacy.

The appeal property forms one half of a semi-detached pair of bungalows that occupy a backland site to the rear of the houses facing [address] and [address]. Access to the bungalows is gained via a narrow driveway from the former. The pair of bungalows, which were constructed following a grant of planning permission in 1995, share a hipped roof and have a mirrored arrangement at the front. Both have been extended to the rear. The properties are bounded by the rear gardens of the surrounding terraced and semi-detached houses, many of which feature boxy roof additions.

The appeal proposal would comprise removal of a large proportion of the hipped roof to enable the erection of a first floor addition and a flat-roofed rear addition in the space currently occupied by the conservatory. The former would have a flat roof, would extend above the level of the ridge of the hipped roof and accommodate a double bedroom, bathroom and storage.

Given the prevalence of the boxy dormers on the rear roof slopes of neighbouring houses and flat-roofed buildings nearby the proposal would not be a particularly incongruous element in the context of the wider surrounding area. However, due to its size, siting and massing it would be highly prominent in its local context, particularly from the access road and drastically and harmfully unbalance the symmetrical form of the pair of bungalows.

For these reasons I conclude that the proposed roof addition would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance the host building. As such it fails to accord with Policy 53 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan (2024) (WFLP) which supports development proposals where they reinforce and/or enhance local character and distinctiveness and respond appropriately to their context in terms of scale, height, and massing.

Due to its siting and size I am satisfied that the ground floor addition would not have any unacceptable effects on the character and appearance of the area or the host building. In isolation this element therefore accords with WFLP Policy 53.

The proposed roof addition would include windows on all 4 sides. The pair of windows in the main side elevation would face the appeal property’s garden and a heavily treed area of land beyond. As such there would not be overlooking from these main apertures. A small window serving the bedroom would face the rear garden of [address] and a tall landing window would face the rears of the nearby houses in [address]. Both would potentially allow views into neighbours’ gardens and towards rear windows in these neighbouring houses. This would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of the nearby houses.

However, the small bedroom window does not provide the main source of light to, or outlook from, the bedroom and the rear window solely provides light to circulation space. In these circumstances the impacts on privacy could be mitigated by the imposition of a planning condition requiring the installation of obscured glazing in these 2 apertures, were the proposal acceptable in respect of the first main issue.

For these reasons I conclude that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents. As such it accords with WFLP Policy 57 which stipulates that new development should respect the amenity of neighbours avoiding harmful impacts from overlooking.

[name] have concluded that the ground floor addition is acceptable this is not entirely physically separable from the roof level works and therefore a split decision cannot be issued solely allowing the ground floor addition.

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