Appeal 6000034

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of 11 and [address] (Nos 11 and 15), with particular regard to daylight, sunlight, and privacy.

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 13), a 2-storey terraced dwelling situated in a residential area. No 13 currently benefits from a single-storey rear extension of approximately 3 metres in depth.

The proposed development would extend No 13 by approximately 6 metres from its original rear wall. As such, the proposed development would not accord with the advice given at paragraph 5.3 of the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2011) (SPD) that, as a general rule, houses can be extended from the rear wall of the original dwelling by up to 3 metres in depth for a terrace house. The additional 3 metre depth of the proposed extension (beyond that generally permitted by the SPD) would not be within an angle of 45 degrees of the boundary with both Nos 11 and 15, contrary to the advice given in paragraph 5.3 of the SPD.

The existing rear extension at No 13 currently protrudes past the rear ground-floor windows at No 15. Due to its close proximity to those windows, and its depth and height, the proposed extension would likely cause a reduction in the amount of daylight received to those windows. Whilst it would be single-storey and with a flat roof, due to the orientation of No 13 and No 15, the proposed extension would likely block a fair amount of sunlight towards those rear windows at No 15 during the afternoon.

Furthermore, although an existing level of overlooking exists between dwellings in the locality, including from upper-floor rear dormers, the raising of the level of the garden patio would allow for overlooking towards the rear garden area at No [address]-quarters. This would be more intrusive than the existing overlooking from upper-floor rear windows, due to the presence of people on the garden patio in close proximity to the rear garden area at No 15, even taking account of the fencing between the 2 plots. The raising of the garden patio would also provide opportunities for overlooking towards the rear garden area at No 11. Similarly, due to the presence of people on the garden patio at No 13, this would be a more intrusive form of overlooking than which presently occurs from the upper-floor windows of nearby dwellings. Planting cannot be relied upon to mitigate these adverse impacts, as this could be removed at any time.

The Officer’s Report and plans relating to the single storey rear extension1 at [address] (No 30) have not been provided. As the nature of the Council’s assessment is unknown, the degree to which this example is comparable with the proposed development is unclear. The Officer’s Report relating to the grant of planning permission2 for a first floor rear extension at No 30 stated that the extension was policy compliant with the SPD. As explained above, the proposed extension would result in a clear conflict with the requirements of the SPD. I observed that the ground-floor rear extension at No 15 is at a far lesser depth than that proposed at No 13. The outbuilding in the rear garden of No 15 is set-away from the rear windows at [address]. As all these examples are not directly comparable with the proposed development and the site-specific circumstances involved, they do not change my findings on this main issue.

Mention has been made of other raised terraces of a similar / greater height on [address] than that proposed. However, as the details of their respective heights from ground level have not been provided, it has not been demonstrated that these are directly comparable with the proposed development. Accordingly, these examples also do not change my findings.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 11, with particular regard to privacy, and an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 15, with particular regard to daylight, sunlight, and privacy. It would conflict with parts i. and ii. of Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan (2016 –

(adopted 2021) which provides that, amongst other things, to protect the amenity of existing and future residents the Council will support developments that do not result in unacceptable overlooking or loss of privacy and unacceptable loss of daylight and sunlight.

The proposed development would also conflict with paragraph 135 f) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should ensure that developments create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The proposed development would respect the character and appearance of both No 13 and the local area. Nevertheless, as a single-storey extension situated to the rear of No 13 it would constitute a limited alteration to the design of No 13. 1 Y0118.21 2 P1634.21 Thus, it would not constitute an enhancement of the design of No 13. This is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development.

The lack of objections from neighbouring residents and any interested parties is a neutral matter, as there could be any number of reasons why these parties have not objected. The proposed development could result in benefits to the Council in relation to Council tax. The Planning Practice Guidance however makes it clear that it would not be appropriate to make a decision based on the potential for a development to raise money for a local authority or other government body3. These are also neutral matters.

Reference has been made to terraced properties being extended by up to 6 metres in depth through the exercise of permitted development rights. As the right in question is subject to a prior approval procedure, the outcome of any prior approval application would not be certain. Additionally, no evidence of a prior approval application has been provided. Therefore, whilst this option may be exercisable on other terraced properties, it has not been demonstrated that there is a greater than a theoretical possibility that the right could be exercised in this case. Consequently, very little weight is given to this matter in support of the proposed development.

The proposed development would improve No 13 to the benefit of its present and future occupiers. However, this would mainly entail a private benefit. The proposed development would result in economic benefits by providing work for construction professionals. Taking account of the limited scale of the proposed development, it has not been demonstrated that these economic benefits would be significant. These matters merit little weight in favour of the proposed development.

Overall, as a matter of planning judgement I find that the matters advanced in support of the proposed development, do not, either individually or collectively, outweigh the harm identified, nor the conflict with the development plan identified.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.