Appeal 6002767

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development given on the application form referred to “retention and regularisation” of the proposal. [name] recognise that the raised decking element of the proposal is retrospective, I have removed this reference from the banner heading above as these matters are not acts of development.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring property at 5 [site address] having particular regard to the loss of daylight, sunlight and outlook.

The appeal site comprises a detached house which has been recently altered and extended. These works included the formation of a raised patio/deck area to the rear of an approved single storey rear extension. The patio/deck did not have the benefit of planning permission.

Due to the change in levels on and around the site, the patio/deck is elevated above natural ground level and its raised position allows for substantial overlooking to neighbouring properties. Due to the height of the patio/deck this overlooking is significant, particularly towards the neighbouring property at number 5 [site address] . In order to mitigate this, screen fences are proposed to both sides of the raised patio/deck. This, however, results in a large amount of built form in proximity to this neighbouring property.

The Council estimates the depth of the fencing and extension to project around 6.65 metres from the back wall of this neighbour and I have no reason to disagree with this assessment. The height of the fencing would reach around 2.74 metres and this is set beyond the already quite large, and notably taller, single storey rear extension. The cumulative effect of the extension and fencing would be to introduce a significant mass of walling and fencing that would be visible from the rear rooms and garden to number 5. Whilst this is separated by an approximately [site address] metre gap to this neighbour’s property, this would still have an overbearing appearance and result in a loss of outlook to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupants.

The extension and fencing, in cumulation exceed the recommendations set out in the [name] and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2019) and further conflict with policy QD9 of the Lewisham Local Plan (2025). This is insofar as the proposal would adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties including back gardens.

The Council further expressed concern regarding a loss of sunlight and daylight due to the extension and fencing. [name] accept this may be the case for limited times of the day, both properties are broadly south facing, and this means that there would be reasonable light and solar access for most of the day. This is such that I am unable to conclude that any loss of daylight or sunlight would cause any demonstrable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of number 5. This is because there would be ample access to daylight and sunlight for the majority of the day.

The proposal would result in an extension with rear fencing to the rear that would appear intrusive and overbearing when viewed from the neighbouring property. The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.