Appeal 6003209

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the application was determined, the Council has adopted the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document in December 2025 (the [name] and [name]). This document replaces the [name] and [name], dated 2009, which was referred to in the Council’s reason for refusal. The most recently adopted version of the document has been referred to by the Appellant, the Council and interested parties. Consequently, I have had regard to the guidance within newly adopted version of the SPD in my determination of this appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] (No 30) with particular regard to privacy.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey, mid terrace property, which is currently divided into two self-contained flats. The surrounding area is primarily residential in character comprising mostly similar types of terraced properties, a number of which have been extended. The appeal property is bounded by [address] to the south and [address] to the north.

The proposed development would involve the erection of a single storey extension to the rear of the ground floor flat ([name]) and the removal of an existing timber staircase which would be replaced by a metal staircase, with walkway for the upper floor flat ([name]). The appellant has confirmed that the upper floor flat has shared access to the rear garden.

The Council has raised no specific concerns in relation to the design of the proposed extension and external staircase. Based on the evidence before me and my own observations, I see no reason to disagree. Furthermore, the Council has raised no specific concerns in relation to the effect of the proposed single storey extension on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Therefore, my assessment will focus on the effect of the external staircase on the living conditions of neighbouring residents with particular regard to privacy.

Policy LP2 of the of the Hackney Local Plan 2033, adopted July 2020 (the HLP) states that development should be designed to ensure there are no significant adverse impacts on the amenity of occupiers and neighbours. The Council has also drawn my attention to guidance contained with the [name] and [name], which states that roof terraces, balconies and external platforms can provide valuable outdoor space for dwellings without access to a garden but can present problems with overlooking, loss of privacy to neighbouring properties, and sometimes create nuisance during use. It further states that while some overlooking can be mitigated by the erection of screening, the screening itself can result in additional impacts due to its height (necessary to prevent overlooking), materials and general design.

It is not disputed that the existing timber staircase is lawful by virtue of the passage of time, the appellant states that it has been in situ since around 1986. It is also not disputed that the replacement of the existing timber staircase is necessary as it is unsafe and no longer fit for purpose. Furthermore, it is accepted that the proposed alteration to the staircase (including provision of the walkway) would also be necessary to provide access to the rear garden if the ground floor extension is able to proceed.

However, whilst I acknowledge that existing staircase needs to be relocated in order for the proposed ground floor extension to be able to proceed, the position of the staircase would be materially different to its current position, which is tight to the rear elevation of the building. Although the walkway would run alongside the existing upper floor of the appeal building, away from the shared boundary and has been designed to be as narrow as possible, nonetheless, it would have a small platform located very close to the shared boundary with No 30. From this position, users of the staircase would have elevated views towards and into the rear garden of the neighbouring property, which is not currently the case. Although there is some intervening vegetation to provide some screening, it would nevertheless lead to a harmful sense of overlooking and reduction in privacy for occupiers of the neighbouring property.

I acknowledge that the appeal property is located in a urban context where mutual overlooking and lower levels of privacy are to be expected. The glazed nature of the extension to the rear of No 30 means that overlooking from upper floors of neighbouring properties already exists to a certain degree. However, this does not change the fact that the position of the replacement staircase would afford occupiers views across the neighbour’s rear garden, causing a harmful effect on their privacy and enjoyment of their garden.

I acknowledge that there is little substantive evidence that the existing staircase and platform have been used as external amenity space, nor that would support the suggestion that the new walkway and staircase would be used as such. I note that the raised platform is likely to be too small to provide meaningful private outside amenity space, but it remains accessible and capable of being used for standing on. The roof design of the single storey extension incorporates raised elements which would serve to prevent use of the flat roof as a balcony or terrace. Furthermore, the use of a 1.1 m balustrade will clearly define the walkway and prevent access to the flat roof.

However, this would still enable views into the neighbouring garden of No 30 which would significantly reduce the level of privacy enjoyed. Therefore, whilst I have had regard to whether a condition could be imposed to prevent the use of the walkway to enable access only, explicitly prohibiting their use for any other purpose including external seating, storage, or socialising, I am not persuaded that any such condition would be enforceable nor that it would overcome the harmful reduction in privacy.

I have had regard to the appellant's suggestion that a condition could be used to the require screening, namely, the provision of 150mm planters along the perimeter of the walkway, which could be planted with bamboo at a height of 1.7 metres. The appellant is also willing to accept any further conditions deemed necessary. However, whilst this would provide visual screening from the walkway, it would not alter the relationship of the platform and staircase to the neighbouring property. Furthermore, I do not have full details of any proposed landscaping to be satisfied that this would satisfactorily overcome the privacy concerns.

Both the Council and third-party representations have made reference to a lack of consideration for alternative, less harmful proposals. However, the appellant states that there is no alternative arrangement which could provide access to the garden and enable the ground floor extension to proceed. Taking into consideration the mid-terrace location of the appeal building, I acknowledge that there are limited opportunities to enable the first-floor flat continued access to their shared rear garden. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm which I have identified.

It is not disputed that the replacement of the existing staircase on a like-for like basis could occur. However, this is not what is being applied for, and the position of the proposed staircase is not comparable to that of the existing staircase. Therefore, whilst I have had regard to this as a ‘fallback position’, it does not alter my above findings. Furthermore, I acknowledge that the appellant has sought to work proactively with the Council by providing amendments and being agreeable to the imposition of planning conditions. Nevertheless, this does not alter my conclusions on the harmful effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers.

For the above reasons, I therefore find that due to the position of the staircase, it would result in an unacceptable detrimental impact on the neighbouring property in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy. Thus, it would be contrary to Policies LP2 and D3 of the HLP and Policies D3 and D6 of the London Plan (2021), these policies seek amongst other things, to ensure that development should not cause significant harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties. There would also be conflict with the guidance contained within the [name] and [name].

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.