Appeal 6001287

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor rear extension, front facade alterations including two rooflights and front gable roof, internal alterations and all associated works at [site address] [site address] , Dagenham, Barking and Dagenham, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01243/HSE, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan, [name]. PP-14288276v1 [name], [name]. B4398-3100 [name]

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on the: • character and appearance of the area; and • living conditions of the occupiers of 90 [site address] (No.90), with regards to outlook, privacy and the provision of natural light.

The appeal property relates to an end of terrace dwelling along [site address] . The property benefits from an existing single storey rear projection. Surrounding development comprises mainly of two storey terraced dwellings of a similar size and style.

The Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) outlines how no part of a first-floor extension should extend beyond a 45- degree angle as taken from the corner of the adjacent property. It also states that roof treatment should reflect the character of the original dwelling and flat roofed extensions will not be considered acceptable in most circumstances.

The proposed first floor rear extension would be positioned above the existing ground floor rear projection for a relatively short part of its length. In this regard it would extend beyond a 45-degree angle taken from the corner of the adjoining terraced dwelling. The eaves would sit slightly above the existing eaves of the main roof; however, the flat roof would be sat down from the main roof line. The flat roof would not match the main roof of the dwelling, contrary to SPD guidance. However, it would be in keeping with surrounding development whereby single storey rear projections with flat rooms are a common feature. Additionally, the set down from the main ridge line and the flat roof form would ensure subservience to the main dwelling. On my site visit I also observed similar developments to the rear of properties. Overall, the proposed first floor rear extension would be a subordinate addition to the main dwelling and would be in keeping with the surrounding area. Accordingly, for the reasons set out, a departure from the guidance within the SPD is justified in this regard.

The proposed front gable extension would be relatively small in scale. Its apex would sit well below the main ridge line of the dwelling, and its small size would ensure subordinance to the main dwelling. Its form would also be in keeping with other front gable projections in the area, where a range of altered rooms forms are evident. Whilst it may somewhat disrupt the symmetry along the terrace, I do not consider that this would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The Council consider the two first floor side windows and two rooflights to the front of the property to be acceptable in this regard. I see no reason to disagree with this.

Overall, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The scheme would therefore be in accordance with Policies SP2, DMD1 and DMD5 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Local Plan (BDLP). Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that extensions are of high-quality design and complement the character of the existing building and the surrounding area.

The Council’s refusal reason refers to the proposal being contrary to Policy D4 of the London Plan (LP). This policy concerns the use of tools for design analysis, design review processes and maintaining design quality through to completion, which I do not find to be relevant to the determination of this appeal. Living conditions

The first-floor window on the rear elevation of No.[address] to its shared boundary with 88 [site address] . This separation distance, coupled with the relatively short depth of the proposed first floor extension would ensure that outlook from this window is not unacceptably harmed by the proposed rear extension. The proposed extension would also not project beyond the depth of the existing rear projection at No.90, therefore outlook from the ground floor rear windows of No.90 would not be unacceptably harmed. This would also ensure outlook from the garden area of No.90 is not unduly harmed. Additionally, the garden is relatively long, therefore much of the outlook from the garden would be unaffected by the proposed rear extension. Overall, the proposed rear extension would not result in unacceptable harm to the outlook from No.90.

The appeal property benefits from a first-floor window on the rear elevation, serving a bedroom. The proposed rear extension would comprise a bedroom and include a window on its rear elevation. Whilst there would be oblique views of the garden of No.90, levels of overlooking would not be above and beyond that which already exists. Additionally, such levels of overlooking would be common in the area, given the properties are terraced dwellings, and appear to generally benefit from first floor rear elevation windows serving habitable rooms. Overall, I do not consider that the rear extension would unduly harm the privacy of the occupiers at No.90.

Given the separation distance between the proposed rear extension and the first-floor rear window at No.90, the window would still receive adequate levels of natural light. Due to the depth of the extension, which would not project beyond the existing rear projection at No.90, the ground floor windows on No.90 would also receive adequate levels of natural light. Similarly, the garden of No.90 would receive adequate levels of natural light.

There may be some minor loss of sunlight to the first-floor rear window of No.90 in the late afternoon/early evening time, however this would be minor and not result in unacceptable harm. Additionally, the appellant has demonstrated that a 45- degree line, when taken from the middle of the first-floor window at No.90, would not be breached by the extension. As the extension would not project beyond the depth of the existing rear projection at No,90, the window on the rear projection would receive adequate levels of sunlight. Whilst there may be some very minor reduction to sunlight received by the rear ground floor window on the recessed part of No.90, this would not result in unacceptable harm. Additionally, the existing rear projection at No.90 would already somewhat reduce the amount of sunlight received by this window in the late afternoon/early evening time. The extension would not result in an unacceptable loss of sunlight to the garden area of No,90. Furthermore, given the length of the garden, much of it would be unaffected by the rear extension.

Overall, whilst the scheme may not be complaint with the guidance in the SPD, I have set out why a departure from the guidance is justified. The Council do not raise any concerns regarding the effect of the front gable extension, or the additional windows on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. I see no reason to disagree with this. The Council also conclude that the scheme would not unduly harm the living conditions of the occupiers at 94 [site address] , I have no reason to disagree with this.

To conclude on the main issue, the scheme would not result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of No.90, with regards to outlook, privacy and the provision of natural light. The scheme would therefore be in accordance with Policies SP2, DMD1 and DMD5 of the BDLP. Collectively, amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure high quality design that does not significantly impact on quality of life for neighbouring residents.

The Council’s refusal reason again refers to the proposal being contrary to Policy D4 of the LP. As mentioned, I do not find to be relevant to the determination of this appeal.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have used a condition to specify the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interest of certainty. A condition to control the external materials of the development is also necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed.