Appeal 6001318

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development described as “retention of single storey rear extension” at [site address] , Dagenham [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00916/HSE, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: [name] & [name]/17WR/201 issue A; [name]/17WR/203 issue A; [name]/17WR/204 issue A and As Built Site Plan LIVARCH/17WR/206 issue A.

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 scheme. The development in regard to which has commenced, so it has been considered on a partly retrospective basis.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on a) the character and appearance of the area; and b) the living conditions of the occupiers of Numbers 15 (No.15) and 19 (No.19) [address] with specific regard to outlook and light, and the provision of garden space for the occupants of the host dwelling.

The appeal property is a mid-terrace dwelling within a block of six similar properties in a residential area of comparable homes. It appears to have been previously extended with a single storey flat-roof rear addition and an outbuilding located at the end of the garden, both of which are typical features in the locality.

The proposed extension, when considered alongside the existing development, would form a noticeable addition. However, given its single-storey height and rearward position, it would not appear unduly prominent. The proposal would not be visible from public vantage points, and the plot length combined with the mid-terrace setting, would prevent it from appearing cramped or overdeveloped. Views from neighbouring properties would be limited, and flat-roofed extensions are a common characteristic in the area.

Consequently, the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would not conflict with Policy D4 of The London Plan, the Spatial Development Strategy for [name] (2021) (SDS), Policies SP2 and DMD1 of The London Borough of [site address] ’s Local Plan 2037 (2024) (LP) or guidance contained in [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2012) (SPD). Amongst other things, these seek to ensure new development optimises site potential, ensuring development relates to its local context. I have not referred to Policy DMD6 of the LP as it relates to advertisements and signage.

The additional length beyond that established through the prior approval scheme would amount to only a modest increase in built form overall. Given the notably long rear gardens and the presence of outbuildings within the neighbouring plots, this marginal extension would not materially alter the existing spatial relationship between the properties. The neighbouring gardens already exhibit a degree of visual enclosure resulting from boundary fences and existing structures along the plot edges.

Within this established setting, the incremental increase in depth would not result in a development that appears unduly dominant or visually intrusive when experienced from either adjoining garden. Owing to the above therefore, the proposal would not give rise to an unacceptable level of overshadowing, nor would it impose an overbearing sense of enclosure on occupiers of adjacent properties.

As a result of the extensions and an existing outbuilding, the remaining garden for the host dwelling would be reduced in size. The SPD does suggest a limit of developed area which would be exceeded as a result of development that has been carried out. Nevertheless, what remains would continue to provide a functional, usable, and unincumbered private space for the occupiers of the host dwelling to sit out and enjoy. I have been given no details of a minimum expected size for a private garden as expressed by the development plan. Consequently, the appeal scheme would not be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or those of the host dwelling. As such, it would not conflict with Policy D4 of the SDS, Policies SP2 and DMD1 of the LP and guidance contained in the SPD. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development considers the impact on amenity of neighbouring properties.

Since works in pursuant of the appeal have started, a time condition is not required. I have, however, set out a condition requiring the development to accord with the approved plans for certainty and enforcement purposes as it has yet to be completed. As they provide details of the materials and they would be acceptable, there is no need for a further condition.

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, and planning permission granted, subject to the condition set out.