Appeal 6003904

The appeal is dismissed.

I saw on my site inspection that a side extension with external staircase and first floor landing had been erected at the appeal site in a similar location to the proposed development. However, what was built was different to the proposed plans, including the design of the railings, and the height of the first-floor landing in relation to openings at first floor level, and there was also no privacy screen to the side of the landing. I have therefore determined the appeal based on it being a proposed development, as shown on the proposed plans.

The Council has submitted with its Statement a copy of an earlier appeal decision1 (the earlier appeal decision) at the appeal site for a similar proposal in 2025, that was dismissed for reasons relating to the effects on existing occupiers in terms of privacy, outlook, and noise and disturbance; and on future occupiers in terms of privacy and noise and disturbance. I have taken that earlier appeal decision into account insofar as it is relevant to this appeal.

Taking into account the submitted documentation and the Council’s notice of decision, the main issues are: 1 Ref. APP/N5660/W/25/3367707 • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at no.16, with particular regard to outlook, and noise and disturbance; and, • whether future occupiers of the first floor accommodation at no.15 would have satisfactory living conditions, with particular regard to privacy, and noise and disturbance.

The appeal site contains a 4-storey mid terraced property, with a commercial unit at ground floor level that faces onto [address], and residential uses on its upper floors, said by the Council to be 4 no. flats and accessed from [address]. The appeal property has a rear two-storey projection, shared with an adjoining property, no.14, although it does not cover the entire width of the property, leaving a narrow courtyard (as shown on the existing plan) to its opposite side, adjoining no 16. Due to no.16’s rear projection being paired with no.17, it too has a similar rear courtyard adjoining no. 15’s courtyard. On the side elevation of no. 16’s rear projection are 3 no. ground floor windows, and 2 no. first floor windows.

No. 16’s ground floor windows on the side of its rear projection are clear glazed, I also saw that they had shutters positioned behind them, they all face directly towards the proposed extension, which would be in very close proximity to them all. The use of the rooms at no.16 served by these windows is not clear, and I have no substantive evidence to dispute the Council’s opinion that they are in residential use, accordingly I have assessed the appeal on this basis.

The large length of the proposed extension, together with the mass of the tall, perforated panels above it, would be a significantly enclosing feature on the common boundary between the two properties, and it would introduce an oppressive and enclosing structure so close to these windows. Whilst no objections are raised in terms of any daylight or sunlight effects, this does not justify the unacceptable outlook from within those rooms. In view of this, the siting and scale of the proposed extension would be harmful to the outlook from these ground floor rooms, and to the living conditions for the occupiers of no.16.

The proposed first floor landing would be directly above the single storey extension, and it would occupy the space between its rear projection and its boundary with no. 16. It would be accessed via an external staircase, and have a significant length, along with a similar width to the host property’s side courtyard (some 2 metres or so wide). It is understood the proposed landing would also be the means of access to the flats within the host property, via a door at first floor level to the side of its rear projection.

Even if the proposed first floor landing is not intended to be used for congregation by occupiers of the host property, its size would indicate that it could be used by those occupiers as outside space. In view of the close relationship between the first floor landing and no.16, there is a reasonable likelihood that noise and disturbance associated with its use as outside amenity space and/or the likely frequent movements into and out of the appeal property by its occupiers, which could be late at night or early in the morning, would likely be noticeable to neighbouring occupiers at no.16, particularly should their windows on the side of their rear projection be open. This relationship would likely cause significant noise and disruption to those occupiers and be harmful to their living conditions.

Whether this would be short-duration or low frequency noise, the combined movements into and out of the flats would likely be regular, and there is no scheme to control or mitigate any such noise and disturbance before me. The appellant has said the proposal is required to improve safety, access, and management arrangements for the flats at the appeal property. Be that as it may, there is very limited information submitted to demonstrate why such changes are necessary or why they would be improvements in this case. In any event, it is not clear that they are the only means of achieving those objectives. In addition, the lack of complaints raised regarding the existing situation at the appeal site would not justify the above identified harmful effects.

Although the Council say there is a lack of information required regarding the effects of noise and disturbance on neighbouring occupiers, it has not specified what exact information is required, nor am I aware it has requested any such additional information from the appellant. It is noted that the appellant suggests a condition regarding acoustic lining and sound insulation to the side of the landing. However, no such details have been provided, and it is not known how such a scheme would work alongside the perforated screening. In addition, it is unclear what, if any effects, this would have, including how this could affect living conditions, in addition to the harm already identified above. In view of the close arrangement of the buildings and windows, such mitigation would need to be assessed as part of the proposal and not be a condition, so there would be certainty as to how it would work and any effects it would have, before any permission could be granted.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.16 in terms of their outlook and from likely noise and disturbance. In doing so, I find the proposed development would be contrary to Policy Q2 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020-2035, adopted September 2021 (LLP), which amongst other things, says development should have acceptable standards of privacy, adequate outlook without an undue sense of enclosure, and no adverse impacts from noise and disturbance Living conditions – future occupiers no.15 (first floor)

At first floor level no.15 has a window on the side of its side projection along with a large window on its rear elevation which the proposed plans show would serve a kitchen, as part of a larger living space. The room served by the first-floor side window on the rear projection, is annotated as “n/a”. The Council maintain that it is part of the residential accommodation at first floor level as there has been no planning application or certificate of lawfulness for any changes to its use. There is a lack of information regarding the use of this room, however, I have no substantive evidence to disagree with the Council that it would have a residential use. In view of this, I must assess the effects of the proposed development on this basis, and that it could be a habitable room.

The proposed first floor window on the side would be much narrower than the kitchen window, meaning views into it from the landing would likely only be into part of the room it serves. That room also has a second window on the end elevation of the rear projection; I saw on my site inspection that the presence of other structures at the end of the rear projection would prevent any unacceptable privacy issues for that second window.

Users of the proposed landing would walk directly towards the first-floor kitchen window to access the entrance door, which would be very close to both the kitchen window and the side window. The proposed height of the landing in relation to those windows would likely allow users to see into them, including at close range. Even considering that one window would serve a kitchen area and the restricted internal views from the other window, there would be unacceptable privacy issues arising from this arrangement, to the extent that future occupiers of that flat would have their living conditions harmfully affected.

The use of the landing as set out above, would be used for movements into and out of the flats at the appeal property, and could be used as outside amenity space, including at night-time or early mornings. This could create significant noise and disturbance, very close to these windows. This proposed arrangement would likely create unacceptable noise and disturbance for future occupiers within the rooms served by these windows.

When considering the same arguments put forward by the appellant, as set out above in paragraphs 10, and 11, to this main issue, they would also for the same reasons, not alter my findings or outweigh the identified harms.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of future occupiers of the first floor accommodation at no.15 due to unacceptable privacy effects and from likely noise and disturbance. In doing so, I find the proposed development would be contrary to LLP Policy Q2, which amongst other things requires acceptable standards of privacy, and no adverse impacts from noise and disturbance.

In support of the appeal it is said that the proposed extension is single storey and located in an urban area; that it makes use of an underutilised space; that there are no harmful effects identified to the character and appearance of the host property and the area; and that no unacceptable harm from daylight or sunlight effects have been found. Even taking these points into account collectively, they attract limited weight and are insufficient to outweigh the harms identified above.

It is clear that noise and disturbance were matters that were considered as part of the earlier appeal decision, and I am content that my findings in this case would not be inconsistent with that decision.

I therefore conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and it would not therefore be sustainable development, and there are no other considerations, including those raised by the appellant, which outweigh that conflict. For the reasons outlined above, the appeal should be dismissed.