Appeal 6002261

The appeal is dismissed.

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 main issues are the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and host property, and the living conditions of the occupiers of [address], in particular regard to outlook and light.

The appeal property is sited at the end of a terrace. Extensions and garden outbuildings are common additions to the dwellings within this row, reducing the depth of the gardens and usable amenity space. Outbuildings are positioned at the far end of plots to maximise the space to the dwellings. At the appeal property, owing to its shorter garden, the gap between its two outbuildings and the rear elevation is significantly more reduced than that of its neighbours, resulting in a more constrained garden.

This limited amenity space is further reduced by the presence of a patio and plastic canopy projecting from the rear elevation. At the time of my site visit, this structure appeared to function as a utility area, rather than usable garden space, however it has the appearance of a light-weight outdoor structure, rather than as a domestic extension. The structure extends further than neighbouring extensions and contributes to a more confined garden area than is characteristic of the terrace. Appeal Planning Officer 6002261

The proposal would replace the existing patio structure with a conservatory of comparable depth. However, unlike the current open-sided structure, the enclosed form would introduce a more substantial and permanent massing to the rear of the property. Combined with the existing extension, this would permanently extend the depth of the appeal property and increase its bulk, with the resulting ground floor additions no longer appearing subordinate to the host property.

Given the already restricted size of the garden, enclosing the patio would introduce a permanence to the constrained layout, eroding the openness currently mitigated by the canopy’s lightweight structure. Whilst some garden space would be retained, the proposed development would contribute to a cramped, confined feeling to the appeal property’s garden. Moreover, this would be at odds with the character of the surrounding area, where openness has been preserved through maintaining spaciousness between rear development and outbuildings.

My attention has been drawn to a number of other properties in the surrounding area that benefit from rear extensions. Viewed from the garden of the appeal property, these extensions appear to project to the depth of the appeal property’s existing rear elevation. In addition, the gardens of these surrounding properties are greater in depth. The proposal would therefore not be comparable to the prevailing character of rear extensions in the surrounding area. In any event, I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. The development is therefore in conflict with Policy 53 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan Part 1 (Adopted 2024) (WFLP) which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure development responds appropriately to its context and provides an appropriate amount of usable private amenity space.

The existing rear elevation of [site address] is broadly in line with the rear elevation of [address], which itself benefits from an extension. With no built form projecting either side of No 38’s rear elevation, the outlook from the rear-facing windows remains open across its garden and towards the public park beyond.

The proposed conservatory would project further than the rear elevation of No 38. However, it would not extend to a significant depth than is typical of a rear extension. This would not result in an unacceptable length of built form within the outlook of No 38, nor contribute to a harmful reduction of light. The glazed side elevation would further limit the sense of enclosure while the brickwork at the base would be screened by existing boundary treatment, which in turn would reduce the perceived height and massing when viewed from No 38.

The proposal is therefore in accordance with Policy 57 of the WFLP which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure development avoids harmful impacts to outlook and light.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. Appeal Planning Officer 6002261

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