Appeal 6000388

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant’s Grounds of Appeal included new material evidence in the form of a Daylight & Sunlight Assessment (dated June 2025). The Council was provided with an opportunity to comment on this evidence. No comments were received. I have had regard to this report in my decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], with particular regard to outlook, sense of enclosure, sunlight, and daylight.

The appeal site comprises [site address] (No 37), a 2-storey end-of-terrace dwelling, located on the corner of [address] and [address] in a predominantly residential area. In addition to 2 rear-facing dormers, No 37 benefits from a non-original rear-facing conservatory, which serves a utility room. The side wall of the conservatory lies on the common boundary between No 37 and [address] (No 35). A door at the rear of the conservatory leads onto a side passage, which runs between 2 small storage rooms and a fence on the common boundary with No 35.

I observed that the outlook from the 2 windows closest to the side wall of the conservatory, which serve a study / extension to the main living room at No 35, and which face a passageway leading towards No 35’s rear garden, is currently constrained by the presence of the side wall of the conservatory. Fairly limited views of the vegetation to the rear of No 37’s plot and to the buildings fronting [address] are possible from these windows.

No 37’s existing conservatory and the 2 storage rooms referred to above are proposed to be demolished. A single-storey side and rear extension would be constructed in their place. It would have a depth of approximately 5.8 metres, an eaves height of approximately 2.75 metres, and an overall height of approximately 3.73 metres. It would have a mono-pitched roof, which would slope away from the common boundary.

Due to its depth and maximum height, and its siting in close proximity to the rear windows at No 35 referred to above, the proposed development would considerably exacerbate the poor level of outlook from these windows. Due to its bulk and scale so close to these windows, and that it would constitute a much taller structure than the existing boundary fence which in part separates the 2 plots, it would also appear as an overbearing feature in views from these windows. This would markedly increase the existing sense of enclosure for users of the affected living space.

I observed that the outlook from No 35’s ground floor windows which face the site, which serve a dining room, is presently constrained by the presence of the existing conservatory and the side elevation of No 37’s outrigger, and partly by the fence along the common boundary. Although these structures constitute enclosing features, the gap beyond the conservatory in front of the storage rooms breaks up the mass of built form along the boundary.

Due to the proposed development’s depth and maximum height, it would result in a long and tall structure in close proximity to those windows. This would undermine the available level of outlook from these windows still further. As a taller and deeper structure than the existing conservatory, which would infill the space between the storage rooms and the common boundary, it would also tangibly increase the sense of enclosure for users of the dining room. Due to its siting so close to these windows, the loss of outlook and increased sense of enclosure would make the dining room much less pleasant to use.

Hence, the proposed development would conflict with paragraph i.18 of the SPD1 which provides that, amongst other things, extensions that create an unacceptable sense of enclosure, and extensions that appear overbearing from the neighbouring properties or gardens are unlikely to be granted permission.

The proposed development would be single-storey only, and its built form would be positioned against No 37’s tall outrigger. Considering this, and as No 35 is situated to the west of No 37, the proposed development would not result in any loss of sunlight towards the No 35’s habitable rooms or garden. The proposed development would not take up so much space along No 37’s side passage that any appreciable loss of daylight to No 35’s habitable rooms or garden would occur, over-and-above the existing situation. My findings in this regard are consistent with the conclusions of the submitted Daylight & Sunlight Assessment. Nevertheless, the lack of harm identified in relation to sunlight and daylight does not overcome the harms identified above.

I have had regard to the examples of other developments put forward. As the [name] relating to these examples have not been provided, the reasoning behind the Council’s decisions, including with respect to the effect of the 1 Urban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (adopted 2023) developments on the living conditions of any neighbouring occupiers, is unknown. As such, these examples do not alter my findings above.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 35, with particular regard to outlook and sense of enclosure. It would conflict with Policy DH(b) of the Royal Greenwich Local Plan: [name] with [name] (adopted 2014) which provides that, amongst other things, when determining applications for new developments, extensions or renovations of buildings, the Royal Borough will only permit an application where it can be demonstrated that the proposed development does not cause an unacceptable loss of amenity to adjacent occupiers by resulting in an unneighbourly sense of enclosure.

The site is situated within the Rectory Field Conservation Area (conservation area). As explained in the Rectory Field Conservation Area Character Appraisal (March 2010) the significance of the conservation area derives in part from the architectural and historic interest of the buildings, which are almost all small Victorian terraced houses (some of which have retained their original character and features), and from the character of the area’s townscape, which is defined by low 2-floor construction and ‘T’ junctions giving quiet low vistas.

The proposed development would remove the polycarbonate roof which forms part of No 37’s existing conservatory, and which does not blend well with No 37’s brickwork. The removal of the cement render on the side wall of No 37’s outrigger and the restoration of the original brickwork on that wall would complement No 37’s materials, as would the use of slate tiles for the roof and [name] stock facing brickwork for the proposed extension. Even so, the proposed development would have very limited visibility beyond the immediate vicinity. The works would involve a limited change to No 37’s overall built form. Thus, the proposed development would merely preserve the character and appearance of the conservation area when considered as a whole. This is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development.

The proposed development would improve the accessibility and energy efficiency of No 37, but it has not been demonstrated that a less harmful scheme could not achieve the same aims. This matter attracts little weight in favour of the proposed development.

The proposed development would make an effective use of land, although given its small scale, the benefits in this regard to the wider area would be minimal. It would provide enlarged living accommodation at No 37, which would benefit its occupiers in relation to their food-related business. However, few details have been provided to quantify the scale of any economic benefits arising in this regard. The improved functionality of No 37 (including an additional bathroom) would assist in the management of the family life of the occupiers, but this benefit would be mainly private in nature. Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that these benefits would be significant in planning terms. They merit little weight in its favour.

The proposed development would not create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users, as required by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). So, the above-mentioned benefits of the proposed development would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm identified on the main issue above. The relevant material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

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.