Appeal 6001234

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposed floor plan (drawing No 21-115/04 [name]) submitted with the original application does not show a window in the bedroom of flat 2. However, a window is shown on the proposed elevation (drawing No 21-115/02 [name]) which would serve the bedroom of flat 2. The appellant has submitted a revised proposed floor plan (drawing No 21-115/04 [name]) showing the window which would serve the bedroom of flat 2, as well as the inclusion of a sun path diagram.

Given that the proposed elevation drawing showed the window in question, the corrected plan does not amount to a substantial difference. Although no comments have been provided by the Council in respect of this corrected plan, it has had the opportunity to do so within their Statement of Case or [name]. As such, I do not consider that the Council, or other parties, would be prejudiced by my acceptance of this revised proposed floor plan. I have therefore determined the appeal on the revised proposed floor plan submitted by the appellant.

The main issues are (a) the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of [address] and [address], with specific regard to outlook and sunlight, and (b) whether the proposal would provide acceptable living conditions for the future occupants of the proposal, with regard to outlook and noise.

Above the active ground and first floor uses of the front of the buildings on [address] and [address] is residential accommodation. The residential units are accessed from [address] to the rear of the buildings. Given the commercial nature of the area, the buildings have differing heights and inconsistent rear projections.

The appeal proposal is located on the top floor of [site address] , which has an existing residential use as one 2-bed flat. An external metal staircase and walkway across a flat roof provides access to the existing flat, which occupies only part of the flat roof.

At second floor level, the existing flat has a stepped frontage which is set in front of and slightly higher than [address]. No 137 does not project as far as either of its neighbouring buildings which are angled differently, meaning the occupant’s existing outlook is limited by tall converging brick walls projecting on both sides, creating a tunnelling sense of enclosure. Comparatively, to the other side, the existing flat is set back from the elevation of [address]. As such, the occupiers of [address] have an open outlook over the parapet wall that bounds the flat roof in front of the existing flat at the appeal site.

The proposal, which would provide space for the existing flat to be converted to 2 flats, would extend the depth of the building at second-floor level, creating a stepped frontage. Paragraph 5.2 of the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011) (SPD) makes it clear that the acceptable depth of any proposed rear extension will depend on a number of site-specific considerations. In this case, the appeal site is in proximity and at an angled orientation to [address] and [address], with a highly varied building line with differing heights.

Although the extension itself would be set away from the boundary with No 137, a tall obscure glass privacy screen would be installed on the boundary. Given the difference in height, the extension would result in a harmful addition which would have an overbearing impact, reducing the limited outlook experienced by the occupants of No 137. The obscure glass screen would increase the height of the boundary wall, increasing the sense of enclosure that is already experienced. In combination, the reduction of outlook would be particularly harmful to the occupants of No 137, worsening their existing limited outlook to a harmful and oppressive level.

The proposal would not result in the loss of sunlight or overshadowing of No 137, taking into consideration the existing tunnelling effect experienced by No 137 in combination with the orientation of the appeal site compared to No 137.

The building would be extended up to the boundary of No 4, beyond the rear elevation. The introduction of a solid wall along this boundary near No 4, which is angled towards the appeal site, would have an overbearing impact on its occupants, creating a sense of enclosure that would limit the open outlook that the occupants currently experience. The section of obscure glass, although lighter weight in appearance than the solid wall, would further harm outlook, given its projection from the rear elevation of the appeal site and No 4. Furthermore, the introduction of built form along this boundary in the form of the solid wall would give rise to overshadowing of No 4, limiting the sunlight reaching the upper and lower windows of No 4 given the orientation of the proposal.

The appellant has drawn my attention to paragraph 5.3 of the SPD and the BRE test. However, given the site-specific circumstances, the application of a 45 degree measurement from the property boundary as a way of determining acceptability of the depth of an extension would not be sufficient to fully assess the harmful effects of the proposal in this instance.

The obscure glass which would be on the boundary of flat 1 and flat 2 would prevent direct overlooking into the gardens or windows of the neighbouring buildings. The Council argues that amenity would be lost due to movement and activity seen through the obscure glazing. The private balconies are smaller than the existing flat roof area used by the current occupants of the flat, therefore any activity would be concentrated near to the boundary. That being said, the existing parapet walls are lower than the obscure glass proposed. As such, the obscure glass would reduce the impact of overlooking, resulting in perceived overlooking, rather than actual overlooking that could occur currently.

Accordingly, the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of the occupants of [address] and [address] with regard to outlook. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policy 7 of the London Borough of Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) (Local Plan) which seeks to protect the amenity of existing residents through supporting developments that do not result in unacceptable loss of outlook.

As originally submitted the window arrangement of proposed floor plan and proposed elevations did not correspond with one another, meaning that it was unclear whether the bedroom of flat 2 would have access to natural light and adequate outlook. Policy 7 of the Local Plan makes it clear that residential development should ensure that the amenity and quality of life of future residents is not adversely impacted. Given that it was unclear whether the bedroom of flat 2 would have a window, and therefore not fit for purpose, the proposal, as originally submitted, was in conflict with Policy 7 of the Local Plan.

As detailed within the “Preliminary Matters” section of this decision letter, as part of the appeal the appellant has submitted, a revised proposed floor plan to show that the bedroom of flat 2 would have a window was submitted. In view of the revised plan, the appeal proposal would comply with Policy 7 of the Local Plan and would result in the bedroom of flat 2 having acceptable outlook for future occupants.

The bedroom of flat 1 would abut the living room of flat 2, which could lead to the transmission of noise between the flats that might disturb their respective occupiers. That being said, sound insulation could be installed that would protect the living conditions of future occupiers, which would mitigate any potential harm. The appellant’s statement notes that Building Regulations, a separate regulatory regime, would secure appropriate insulation to prevent noise transmission. Given that this would be separately secured, the arrangement of rooms would not result in unacceptable living conditions for future occupiers.

In view of the above, I conclude that the proposal provides an acceptable standard of living conditions for future occupiers in accordance with Policies 7, 10 and 26 of the Local Plan and Policy D6 of The London Plan which collectively seek to ensure that ahigh quality living environment is provided for residents of new developments.

The second storey is already in use as a residential flat which is accessed by the flat roof, and the proposal would utilise existing cycle and bin storage. I acknowledge that the proposal would result in an additional residential unit, which would be a benefit of the proposal. However, these benefits do not outweigh the harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers that I have found above.

[name] have found that the proposal would provide an acceptable standard of living conditions for future occupiers, it would be harmful to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupants.

As such, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.