Appeal 3374666

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 application was submitted retrospectively. From my site visit I saw that the rear extension included within this application has been constructed. The appeal has therefore been considered on this retrospective basis.

It has been brought to my attention that an enforcement notice was issued against the rear extension in its current form. I have not been provided with any additional information regarding the enforcement notice, and it is not the purpose of this appeal to determine the lawfulness of the existing extension.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 1 [name], with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling with a long rear garden. The rear building line of [address] is not consistent, with the appeal property largely in line to its neighbouring properties to the south, whilst set further forward to those to the north. Where [address] has a similarly long rear garden, 1 [name] garden is much smaller in comparison. Due to 1 [name] set back, the outlook from the garden and rear facing windows would already have been somewhat restricted by the appeal property. However, as the depth of the appeal property did not extend across the depth of the garden, some outlook would Appeal Planning Officer APP/C5690/D/25/3374666 have been maintained. Fencing and vegetation along the shared boundary provide some screening, and although 1 [name] sits slightly higher than the appeal property, this difference is marginal.

The first-floor rear extension to the appeal property extends along almost the entire depth of the garden of 1 [name], with only small set back from the boundary. Despite the marginal elevation differences, the height of the rear extension near to the boundary introduces a substantial vertical bulk of built form. Whilst vegetation has some screening effect, the development significantly exceeds in height this boundary treatment and contributes to a confined and oppressive feel and a reduced outlook from the garden and rear kitchen window of 1 [name].

The appeal site benefits from planning permission1 for a rear extension, wherein the first-floor and roof extension along the boundary line with 1 [name] is set back, mitigating the sense of enclosure. Although only a small addition, the current development erodes the spaciousness previously afforded, creates a sense of enclosure, and therefore exacerbates the harm to 1 [name] outlook.

For the reasons above, I conclude the development results in harm to the outlook of 1 [name]. The development is therefore in conflict with Policy QD9 of the Lewisham Local Plan ([name] 2025), the guidance contained within the Alterations and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document ([name] 2019), and the National Planning Policy Framework which, amongst other things, seek to ensure development provides acceptable living conditions for neighbouring properties in regard to outlook.

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 on that basis the appeal is dismissed.