Appeal 6003187

The appeal is dismissed.

The parties were advised that evidence for another appeal case with a similar address to the appeal proposal was noted in the appeal file. The parties were given the opportunity to check the correct evidence had been viewed or received and to raise any concern in this regard if necessary, and no concerns have been raised. I am satisfied that my decision has been made having regard to the correct appeal submissions and the parties have had the opportunity to comment. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the living conditions of neighbouring residents, with particular regard to outlook, privacy and daylight; and • the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of occupants of properties at the appeal site, with particular regard to refuse storage.

The appeal site is a two-storey property in a section of Craven Park Road with a mix of residential and commercial development. The ground and first floors of the property are occupied as two separate flats. I was able to view adjacent land and buildings from the rear openings of the first floor flat. These include a kitchen window and double doors with railings close to them that, notwithstanding the detail shown on the submitted existing first floor plan, appeared to restrict use of the roof below as outdoor amenity space.

Residential properties at Nos 1 and [address] are located to the rear of the appeal site. [address] is a two-storey property with ground floor windows to the rear of a single-storey flat roof extension and windows above at first floor level. It has a modest area of rear garden space that adjoins the appeal site, which contributes to a more open aspect to its rear in comparison to other surrounding properties. [address] is offset from the rear of the appeal site and comprises a two-storey property that has been extended at ground floor level. The blank brick walls of that extension are built up to the rear boundaries with Nos 2 and [address] and along the side boundary adjoining [address]. A full width dormer extension has also been constructed to its rear roof slope.

There is existing intervisibility between neighbouring properties and rear gardens close to the appeal site, as well as constraints in terms of the height and proximity of surrounding buildings, as is common within a dense, urban context such as this. At the appeal site, there are existing effects on outlook and privacy between the occupants of adjacent residential properties. This is particularly evident from the first floor of the appeal site in relation to [address] given its position directly to the rear, the short rear gardens and the close proximity of the properties.

The proposal would significantly increase the height of the appeal property, with an additional storey and pitched roof being constructed to create a third flat with accommodation at second floor level and within the roof space. Large, glazed windows and openings to the rear elevation at second floor level would serve the kitchen and dining room areas. A balcony accessed from the dining room would also provide accessible external space at this elevated level to the rear elevation.

Despite the use of a pitched roof to the proposal, the considerable increase in height with the additional storey and overall bulk of the development would result in a much greater overbearing effect for neighbouring residents compared to the existing property. Given the close relationship between the properties, there would likely be a significant detrimental impact in terms of outlook for the neighbouring occupants at [address] in particular. From what I was able to observe, this would be in relation to at least one ground floor window in the rear elevation and in views from its rear garden.

The large windows, and in particular the use of the balcony, at the second floor would also increase the likelihood of overlooking of some neighbouring properties from this higher level in comparison to views from the existing first floor windows. This overlooking would be especially notable for occupants at [address] due to the close proximity of the properties and the more open aspect between the rear elevations and gardens in comparison to others. Although mutual overlooking between properties exists at present, the large openings and likely use of the balcony for external amenity space would result in a significant loss of privacy that would unacceptably impact upon the living conditions of the neighbouring residents at [address].

No technical daylight assessment has been provided to demonstrate the extent of any impact in that respect. From my observations, some loss of daylight is likely for occupants of [address] due to the significantly increased height of the proposal and the close proximity to that property. However, the degree of impact beyond the existing situation has not been clearly shown. In any event, I have found that there would be unacceptable harm for neighbouring residents in terms of loss of outlook and privacy for the reasons set out above.

The Council accepts that the proposal would not cause significant overshadowing given the site’s orientation, and from the information before me I have no reason to disagree.

I conclude that the development would be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring residents with regard to outlook and privacy. This conflicts with Policies DM1, DM7 and DM12 of the Haringey Development Management DPD (July 2017) (the DPD). Amongst other things, these policies aim for proposals to ensure a high standard of privacy and amenity for neighbours and avoid overlooking and loss of privacy. Given my findings above on daylight, I am not satisfied that the proposal would be contrary to Policy D6 of The London Plan (March 2021) (the LP), which aims for development to provide sufficient daylight and sunlight to surrounding housing that is appropriate for its context.

The appeal property is built up to the pavement of the street and does not appear to have any external amenity space to its frontage or sides. Typical domestic size refuse bins were therefore sited on the pavement in front of the property and the adjacent property at [address], which also does not appear to benefit from external space to the front or sides. A significantly larger refuse bin was also sited to the front of [address] to a commercial premises. The proliferation of bins on a relatively short section of pavement that is not particularly wide therefore detracts from the visual amenity of the area. Residential properties further along Craven Park Road predominantly feature modest front gardens that provide off-street areas for their refuse bins. Whilst bins were still evident to the front of those properties, their siting within areas largely enclosed by low walls assists in mitigating the visual impact in the street scene.

The proposal would increase the number of residential units at the appeal site and the need for additional provision for refuse storage. The siting of bins on the pavement is an existing characteristic in the immediate area of the site. However, placing additional bins in this section of pavement would exacerbate the existing situation and further contribute to the adverse visual impact. This would be visually harmful to the detriment of the character and appearance of this part of the street.

The submitted plans show two proposed internal bin store areas at ground floor level beside the main entrance to the property and the front doors to the flats. The existing space in this area comprises a small closet and a more open space that was used for storage. From the information before me, the proposed storage areas would not appear to be of sufficient size to accommodate the relevant bin types. Access to these areas would also be problematic, as manoeuvring bins up and down the stepped entrance and in such a confined space would be difficult and likely render the arrangement impractical. Siting general waste internally and adjacent to the flat entrances would further increase the potential for harm to the living conditions of occupants. I therefore have no satisfactory information before me to demonstrate that a suitable scheme could be achieved internally.

Consequently, I conclude that the development would have an unduly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of occupants of properties at the appeal site, with regard to refuse storage. It would therefore conflict with Policy D6 of the LP and Policies DM1, DM4 and DM12 of the DPD. Amongst other things, these policies aim for development to be designed to provide adequate and easily accessible storage space for waste, for waste provision to be located and screened to avoid nuisance and adverse impact on visual and other amenity, to make a positive contribution to a place, to improve the character and quality of an area, and be of high quality.

The appellant refers to a development at the adjacent [address] Road1 that permitted a roof extension to create an additional storey. While there appear to be some similarities, this is not identical to the circumstances of the appeal scheme. It comprises a materially different design and relationship with the property directly to its rear compared to the appeal scheme. From the information before me, the development at No 4 does not appear to incorporate a balcony at an elevated level to the rear elevation. This was also determined under a different development plan context. I therefore cannot draw any direct comparison that would weigh in favour of the appeal scheme, and this does not justify the harm that I have found.

I have had regard to suggested benefits of the proposal, which include delivering a family-sized dwelling and optimising a sustainable and highly accessible site. However, given the scale of the development these benefits would be modest and would not outweigh the significant weight I give to the identified harm in this case.

Where the proposal has been found to be acceptable by the Council in other respects, including the principle of the development, design and appearance, floor space and other standards, transport impacts and sustainability, these are neutral matters that do not weigh in favour of the development.

Notwithstanding my findings in respect of daylight, the proposal would result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents in respect of outlook and privacy, as well as harm to the character and appearance of the area and the living conditions of occupants of properties at the appeal site. The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.