Appeal 6002749

The appeal is dismissed.

On 16 December 2025, the Government published a consultation on proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst broad changes to the structure of the Framework were proposed as part of the consultation, these proposals could be subject to further change and can only be given very limited weight at this stage. It has therefore not been necessary to consult the parties on the changes, and in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Framework published in December 2024.

At the time of my site visit, I saw that the first floor rear window had been replaced by a glazed door. However, the construction works in relation to the external metal staircase had not commenced, and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area; and • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of 30 and [address] (No’s 30 and 34), with particular regard to the effect on privacy, outlook, noise and disturbance.

The appeal property is a two storey mid-terrace dwelling, located within a residential street. It’s rear garden and rear elevation are not visible in public views from [address] or surrounding streets. Consequently, views of the existing property within the streetscene would be unaffected by the proposal. However, given the densely built-up nature of the area, it would be visible from the rear windows and gardens of a large number of properties on [address] and [address].

There are notable differences across the rear elevations of properties on [address] as a result of incremental changes which have occurred through the passage of time. These include rear dormer extensions, a variety of fenestration styles, a mix of different materials on the rear elevations and a variety of roof tiles. However, the rear staircase, due to its scale and projection from the rear elevation, would be a particularly strident and discordant addition to the host property.

Whilst Policy LP26 of the Redbridge Local Plan (2018) (LP) does not require uniformity, it does require development to respect the local character of the area, and make a positive architectural and urban design contribution to its context and location. I note that the staircase’s ‘open-tread’ design is intended to reduce the bulk of the development. However, I do not find the overall design approach successful. There are no other examples of this type of staircase within the immediate area and it would represent an uncharacteristic development. As a result of its form and bulk, it would appear ungainly and awkward in design terms. Despite being located within a private rear garden, it would nonetheless be visually prominent in the vicinity and would appear as a bulky and incongruous addition.

Whilst change to the built environment should not be unnecessarily resisted, the policies in the Framework seek to achieve well-designed places. In particular, paragraph 135 c) requires development to be sympathetic to local character and history. That would not be so here. Indeed, this is a case where the importance of good design trumps the functional purpose and limited private benefits associated with the provision of an additional access from the dwelling to the rear garden.

The glazed door at first floor level is an unusual feature. Whilst its design does not match with other fenestration within the rear elevation it does not project from the elevation and is not particularly prominent in views from adjoining properties. Consequently, it does not appear unduly strident or disruptive to an extent that causes harm to the character of the area.

However, I conclude that the rear staircase would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, contrary to Policy LP26 of the LP. The policy seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that development respects the local character of the area, and makes a positive architectural and urban design contribution to its context and location.

The rear staircase would be positioned close to the side boundary with No 34. It would project above the 1.8 metre timber panel fence which marks this shared boundary with the appeal site.

No 34 has a single storey rear projection with windows facing the appeal site. These windows serve a kitchen and dining area and overlook a rear patio area which is used for dining and recreation. No 34’s rear elevation contains windows serving a living area at ground floor level and bedroom at first floor level. No 30, which adjoins the opposite side of the appeal property also has a number of rear windows at ground and first floor level which appear to serve habitable rooms.

The appeal property’s existing first floor rear windows provide views over its own rear garden, as well as views into the rear gardens of neighbouring properties on [address], including towards the side facing windows and patio area at No 34. As a result, these properties already experience a degree of mutual overlooking between dwellings and gardens, which is typical of a tight‐knit residential area such as this. The character of the terrace is therefore defined by close proximity and a high level of intervisibility between neighbouring properties, which I observed during my site visit. Consequently, the replacement of a first floor window with a larger glazed door in the same location maintains broadly similar views across neighbouring gardens to those that previously existed from the smaller first floor rear window.

When leaving the garden to enter the appeal property via the staircase, occupiers would directly face the rear elevation of the appeal property itself. They would also have angled views towards the rear windows of both No’s 30 and 34, albeit at a closer distance in relation to No 34. I acknowledge that this would introduce views towards neighbouring windows from a vantage point that does not currently exist. However, these views would be angled, and views towards the neighbouring windows would be indirect and only momentary for users of the staircase.

It seems to me very unlikely that occupiers of the appeal property would choose to linger on the external staircase. It would not include a platform that might encourage its use as a balcony, and it would be impractically small to accommodate outdoor furniture typically associated with balcony use. In addition, the appeal property benefits from a generously sized garden, which would provide a far more attractive outdoor space for occupiers to spend their time.

When using the staircase to access the garden from the first floor, occupiers of the appeal property would have views of the rear gardens of No’s 30 and 34 including the patio and rear projection windows at No 34. These garden areas and windows already experience a high degree of mutual overlooking between properties. For these reasons, the use of the staircase would not have an unacceptable effect on the privacy of neighbouring occupiers.

Although some noise would be generated by footsteps on the metal staircase, this would be limited in nature and unlikely to be significantly loud or disturbing to neighbouring occupiers. Access to the rear garden would be for residential purposes only, and as an existing, separate ground floor access would be retained, it seems to me, that the use of the staircase would be relatively infrequent. Consequently, the proposal would not result in unacceptable levels of noise or disturbance for neighbouring occupiers.

The staircase would pitch sharply downwards from first floor to ground level thereby reducing its height and bulk. Its open sided design would allow views through the structure from both the adjoining properties. Therefore, the staircase would not have an unacceptably harmful effect on the outlook for the occupiers of No’s 30 and 34.

[name] have found that the proposal would not have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, it would comply with Policy LP26 of the LP. Amongst other aspects, the policy requires that proposals do not result in adverse impacts upon neighbouring occupiers in relation to privacy, outlook, noise and vibration.

A significant number of concerns from third parties have been raised in relation to the development. These include concerns that the proposal would result in the subdivision of the dwelling into flats. However, given my conclusions on the main issues and that the appeal is dismissed, there is no need for me to address these in further detail.

I note a recent appeal decision1 in the London Borough of Croydon which relates to the erection of an external staircase. The appeal was allowed as the Inspector found that the external staircase would not have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. In this instance, I have come to the same conclusion. However, I have also found that the proposal would cause harm to the character of the area and to the appearance of the host property. The circumstances and effects of the two schemes therefore differ. Each development must be assessed on its own individual merits, and my conclusion is based on the specific characteristics and impacts of the proposal before me.

The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. For the above reasons, having had regard to the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, the appeal is dismissed.