Appeal 6001195

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a raised patio and rear canopy, at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00862/HSE, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted is as shown on the approved plans reference Existing Ground Floor Plan D02; Existing Roof Plan D04; [name] D06 and [name] D07.

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 appeal seeks retrospective planning permission, effectively retaining the development shown on the submitted plans which accurately reflect the scheme on site. The appeal form uses the description on the decision notice. However, I am satisfied that the same on the application form, which I have used, accurately describes the development to which the appeal relates. I have excluded the term ‘retrospective application’ as this does not constitute a form of development. In addition, the Council does not object to the raised patio. I have no reason to disagree. My recommendation therefore focuses on the canopy element and specifically the main issue which is its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of Number [address] (No. 911) with specific regard to outlook.

The adjoining property, No. 911, appears to have a single-storey rear extension with two rooflights, rear door, and large rear window. These elements sit close to the protruding solid wall of the appeal site’s existing rear extension and the shared timber boundary fence. The timber fencing above the raised patio does not materially exceed the height of the previous boundary treatment. As a result, it does not significantly alter the established relationship between the properties.

The canopy is formed of timber posts and transparent polycarbonate roof sheets. Whilst not typical of the dwelling or the area, the use of transparent materials reduces the perception of bulk and introduces a lighter, more open quality. As a result, the structure does not appear unduly dominant or overbearing. Neither the raised patio nor the canopy lead to an unacceptable loss of outlook for the occupiers of No. 911, who are still be able to access a garden of reasonable size with a largely unaffected open aspect.

Accordingly, the development does not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook. It would therefore comply with Policy D4 of The London Plan, the Spatial Development Strategy for [name] (2021), Policies SP2, DMD1 and DMD5 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Local Plan (2024) and guidance contained in The London Borough of Barking and [name] and [name] (2012). Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development considers the impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

The development is already complete and given my findings above, planning permission is granted in accordance with the plans submitted and no further conditions are necessary in this instance.

The appeal scheme would comply with the development plan for the reasons I have set out and there is nothing to suggest a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed. Planning permission is therefore granted, subject to the condition stated.