Appeal 6002550

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council raises no concern regarding the proposed rear dormer and front roof lights. I find no reason to disagree and therefore my main issues relate to the proposed rear extension.

The main issues are therefore: • the effect of the proposed rear extension on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; and • the effect of the proposed rear extension on the living conditions of the occupants of 154 and [address] (No 154 and No 158 respectively) regarding outlook.

No [site address] (No 156) is a mid-terraced two-storey dwelling, which is broadly consistent with its immediate neighbours in terms of existing built form to the rear, creating a sense of uniformity and lower density of development to this section of the terrace. The properties have similar small rear single storey lean-to projections that generally extend to the plot widths and help to define the consistent appearance and character of development in this locality. They also have modest sized gardens. The character of the terrace changes further along [address] towards [address] with a concentration of larger single storey rear extensions of varying designs.

The proposal includes the demolition of the existing single storey lean-to projection and the construction of a single storey extension of approximately 6m in depth beyond the rear elevation of the property. The extension would have an uneven pitched roof sloping towards the side boundaries of the plot with the shallower roof pitch towards No 154.

It is acknowledged that the proposed extension would not be visible from the street scene. However, it would be seen by neighbouring residents from both their rear windows and gardens, and it would therefore have the potential to affect the character and appearance of this part of the terrace.

The proposed extension would be single storey and would therefore be subservient to its host in terms of height. However, it would project a significant distance from the main rear elevation of the dwelling and would introduce a substantial amount of built form to what is a modest sized garden plot. Consequently, the extension would appear as an incongruous addition within the context of neighbouring properties that include small scale rear projections that are typical of the immediate vicinity and contribute positively to the character of this part of the terrace. Furthermore, the introduction of a large asymmetrical pitched roof would appear out of keeping with the prevailing small lean-to roof designs of the rear additions to neighbouring properties.

For the above reasons, the proposed rear extension would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area, contrary to Policy 53 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan (2024) (the LP), which, amongst other things, provides support for development that reinforces and/or enhances local character and distinctiveness, taking into account existing patterns of development, urban form and grain.

Although the existing fences between No 156 and its side neighbours at Nos 154 and 158 are reasonably high and the eaves of the proposed extension would not be dissimilar to those of the existing lean-to projection, the proposal would extend a considerable distance into what is a modest sized garden plot. Furthermore, the extension would sit onto the shared side boundaries, which would provide little relief from the bulky presence of the extension when viewed from neighbouring properties. The narrowness of adjacent plots and the proximity of habitable ground floor rooms of Nos 154 and 158 would exacerbate the perception of enclosure created by the proposed extension. Whilst the uneven roof pitch would provide some reduction in bulk when viewed from No 154, it would be intensified when observed from No 158 due to the steeper roof pitch and closer proximity of the ridge to the shared boundary.

The above findings are reinforced by the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2010), which confirms that as a rule of thumb, proposed rear extensions extending beyond 3m would likely be overbearing to neighbouring residents.

For the above reasons, the proposed extension would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of Nos 154 and 158 regarding outlook, contrary to LP Policy 57, which, amongst other things, requires new development to respect the amenity of neighbours by avoiding harmful impacts from outlook.

The appellant has presented two fallback positions: the construction of a single storey rear extension projecting up to 6m from the rear elevation of the property under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO); and the installation of an outbuilding up to a height of 4m under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the GPDO. Development under both [name] and E would be subject to various limitations and conditions.

In respect of the construction of an extension under Class A, paragraph A.4.(7) requires prior approval from the local planning authority with regards to the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises in circumstances where objections have been received. Although neighbours have not objected to the proposed extension under this appeal, they may do so in respect of future proposals, including those under the GPDO. Having had regard to the Mansell case1, I am not therefore convinced that this fallback position offers a realistic or probable prospect and consequently it does not represent a legitimate fallback position.

Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence before me that provides detail of what could be developed as an outbuilding under Class E in this context. Whilst it is realistic and probable that an outbuilding of some description could be installed, the lack of detail means I am unable to determine whether such a development would be comparable in location, scale and massing to the extension proposed under this appeal and could consequently be similar in terms of the harm I have found. Accordingly, I have considered this appeal based on what is proposed and its consequent effects.

There would be some economic benefits to the proposed development, including employment during construction and supply chain spend. However, the small scale of the proposal renders these benefits minimal. The scheme would also provide the appellants with the opportunity to improve and extend their home. Nevertheless, these are personal considerations, and planning generally relates to matters in the public interest.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.