Appeal 6000303

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupants of [address], particularly with regards to outlook and the proposed rear extension at first floor level.

The appeal property is a two storey, detached dwelling in a suburban residential area.

Planning permission has recently been granted (P1296.24) for part single, part two storey front, rear and side extensions to [site address] (No. 8), with habitable rooms in the roof space. Construction of this was underway when I visited.

The appeal proposal seeks to extend the width of the rear extension at first floor level, but in all other respects the proposed development is in accordance with the previous approval.

As approved, at first floor the rear extension would be set back from the shared boundary with [address] (No. 10) by around 2m. The appeal proposal would bring the side wall of the first floor rear extension in line with that of the ground floor, i.e. to around 1m from the shared boundary with No. 10.

At my site visit I observed that there is a patio area immediately to the rear of No. 10 and windows to habitable rooms close to the shared boundary. Given its proximity to the main house and relative privacy, it is an area of the garden that the occupants are likely to spend prolonged periods of time sitting out in. Hence, relative to other parts of the garden, it is likely to have heightened importance to the occupiers of No.10 in their enjoyment of the property.

The increase in bulk at first floor level and greater proximity to the shared boundary with No. 10, allied with the scale of the rear extension already permitted would result in an overbearing and visually intrusive addition, particularly when viewed from the rear amenity space and windows of No. 10. The increased proximity to the shared boundary would result in an overly dominant extension which would impact on the open nature and enjoyment of this part of the rear amenity space.

The appeal property, as existing, has a comparable rear building line with those of the immediate neighbouring properties. The approved rear extension is already a departure from the prevailing rear building line, and the proposed increase in width of the rear extension at first floor level would accentuate the impact to the point of intrusiveness.

The Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), 2011, seeks to ensure that rear extensions are not overly large and are carefully designed so that they do not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. I accept that the guidance specifying a 2m set in from the common boundary with any attached dwelling for two storey rear extensions is not applicable here given the common boundary in question relates to two detached dwellings. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the date the SPD was adopted, the overarching generic principle is a relevant one, and supports the approach set out in local and national planning policy. Hence, it is a material consideration. My assessment of the proposed rear extension in regard to its relationship with No.10 is that it would not accord with the generic advice in the SPD.

For the reasons given above, the development would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of [address] by reason of an unacceptable outlook. It would, therefore, be contrary to Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (the Local Plan), 2021, which seeks to deliver high quality design and ensure that the amenity and quality of life for existing and future residents is not adversely impacted.

The appeal property is not a listed building and there are no heritage-based constraints, nor were any objections or representations received from third parties in response to the planning application. The materials of the proposed extension would match those already permitted and there are no windows proposed on the side walls at first floor level which might result in overlooking. Furthermore, there is no dispute that the proposed extension accords with the “45 degree rule”, set out in the SPD in respect of the ground and first floor windows of No. 10. The absence of harm in relation to these matters, however, does not outweigh my findings in respect of the main issue.

The recent planning approval at No. 8 grants permission for the rear extension at around 1m from the boundary with No. 6, at both ground and first floor levels. However, at No. 6 there is a single storey garage immediately adjacent to the shared boundary and the habitable rooms are more distant from the boundary. The impact of a rear extension, in close proximity to the shared boundary, on the living conditions of the occupants of No. 10 would be different to those of the occupants of No. 6.

I accept that a full width rear extension at first floor level would allow a simplified roof form to the appeal property and would result in the rear elevation being symmetrical. However, these are not reasons to allow otherwise unacceptable development with a harmful impact on the living conditions of the occupants of No. 10.

The appellant makes reference to examples of other two storey rear extensions, approved in the vicinity Be that as it may, it is not demonstrated that other two storey rear extensions are directly comparable to the specific configuration between Nos.8 and 10 proposed in this case. Hence, whilst their existence attracts limited favourable weight, it is not a reason, on its own, to allow unacceptable development.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.