Appeal 6001583

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a ground floor rear extension at [site address] , [site address] , Ilford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/70721, subject to the following conditions:

The ground floor rear extension hereby permitted is as shown on drawing no’s: WBDS-00064/003 [name] ‘Block Plan’, A3103 ‘[name], A3108 ‘[name], A3109 ‘[name], A 3110 ‘[name].

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.

On my site visit, I noted that a ground floor rear extension, in the position of the extension indicated on the block plan submitted with the planning application, has already been built. It is clear from the appellant’s statement that the development in place is that which they are seeking permission for. Therefore, the appeal has been considered on the basis that planning permission is being sought retrospectively.

The Council’s decision identifies discrepancies between the proposed floor plan and proposed elevation drawings that were provided with the planning application. From my own observations, these drawings also differ from what has been built on site, and the appellant has acknowledged this fact. Even so, the block plan listed on the Council’s decision notice substantively reflects the footprint of the development carried out, particularly in terms of the position of the glazed side elevation, close to the boundary with No 16. Taken together with the description of the proposal the likely relationship with the neighbouring dwelling would have been sufficiently clear to the Council and interested parties. Indeed, comments made by interested parties during the application process related to the as-built situation.

Given the above, and following a request to the appellant, I have been provided with accurate floor plan and elevation drawings reflecting the situation on site. Given the clear premise of the application, no party would be prejudiced by me taking the revised drawings into consideration.

The effect of the development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No 16), with particular regard to outlook.

[site address] is a semi-detached property with a large pre-existing single storey rear extension which sits adjacent to the boundary with No 16. There are multiple ground floor windows, including French doors to the rear elevation of No 16. No 16 also has a long rear garden which tapers outwards.

Due to its modest projection beyond the pre-existing single storey extension, the flat roofed design incorporating an open canopy next to the boundary and a glazed side elevation set away from the boundary, the development has a low profile and lightweight appearance. The nearest window at No 16 is wide, is set in from the boundary and looks over the generously proportioned garden. Taking these factors into account, and even accounting for the respective garden levels, the development has not resulted in any unacceptable overbearing or enclosing effects beyond the pre-existing situation. The ground floor rear extension therefore retains an acceptable outlook for occupiers of No 16.

Accordingly, the development has an acceptable effect on the living conditions of occupiers of No 16, with particular regard to outlook. In that regard, the development accords with Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan (2018) which require that development does not result adverse impacts upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in relation to outlook from surrounding dwellings.

With regards to concerns raised in respect of overlooking effects on No 16, given the extension is at ground floor level, the position of the glazing set in from the boundary, that mutual appreciation of neighbouring gardens is already possible, and that there is scope to increase the height of intervening boundary treatments or planting if desired, there is no material loss of privacy for occupiers of this neighbouring property. For similar reasons to those set out under the main issue, and given that there is no detailed evidence to suggest otherwise, it is unlikely that the ground floor extension has resulted in any material loss of daylight or sunlight to the rooms or garden serving No 16.

Any works undertaken to create a patio beyond the footprint of the extension are not a matter for this appeal which relates to the development described on the application form. Party wall agreements are a private matter between landowners.

As the development has already been substantively completed, timescales for implementation are not required. A single condition requiring the ground floor rear extension to be as shown on the revised drawings provided during the appeal process is necessary in the interests of certainty.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.