Appeal 6003974

The appeal is dismissed.

The first main issue to be determined in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings. The second is the effect of the proposed development on the residential amenities of neighbours (whether unacceptable harm would be caused by overbearing appearance or loss of light).

The appeal site is located in an extensive urban area of north-east London that is characterised by closely built-up frontages in a grid-like street pattern. [site address] is a long distributor route, running roughly north-south, and number [site address] is close to the junction with [address] (to the west) and [address] (to the east). The area is predominantly residential in character, although there is a range of commercial premises and shops in different places along [site address] , mainly serving the local community. There is also a school nearby, at the corner of [site address] and [address].

Number [site address] [site address] is a typical Victorian terraced house, of two storeys, constructed of brickwork under a pitched roof, with various decorative architectural features on the front elevation. At the time of the site visit, construction works were being undertaken, including newly executed works for the construction of a rear dormer alteration at attic level, including roof windows on the front elevation. The house is currently laid out with five bedrooms on the upper floors (although these rooms were not inspected at the time of the site visit).

The house includes a two-storey rear projection into the back garden. The projection appears to be part of the original design but the garden is modest in Appeal Decision: 6003974 scale and is currently dominated by construction materials from the on-going building works.

It is now proposed to construct an extension to the existing two-storey outshot at the rear of the house. This would provide additional living space on the ground floor and additional space on the first floor to provide a bathroom and a rear bedroom in the outshot.

The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ emphasises the aim of “achieving well designed places” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 12), while making effective use of land and encouraging economic activity. It is aimed at achieving good design standards generally, by adding to the overall quality of the area and being visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history, although it is also recognised that appropriate change may include increased densities. The achievement of good design includes protecting existing residential amenities and providing good standards of accommodation in new development.

Policies in the Development Plan also share these basic principles.

In particular, Policies D3 and D4 of ‘The London Plan’ (dated March 2021) promote a “design-led approach” to development and “delivering good design”, as general aims. ‘The London Plan’ identifies some important design criteria, including the need to “deliver appropriate outlook, privacy and amenity”.

Similarly, in the ‘Newham Local Plan 2018’ (which was adopted in December 2018), Policies SP1, SP2 and SP3 promote good design generally, while Policy SP8 is specifically concerned with “Ensuring Neighbourly Development”.

The Council’s ‘Altering and Extending your Home Supplementary Planning Document’ (dated February 2018) is also relevant but it does not have the force of the statutory Development Plan.

The proposed rear extension at number [site address] would continue the form of the existing rear outshot, using materials to match. New windows would look towards the back garden of the property but the flank walls would be rather plain. Indeed, the wall on the boundary with number 172 would be blank brickwork (to ridge height), for obvious good reasons. Although the design is in keeping with the existing house, therefore, it seems unduly bulky and awkward for its setting.

More significantly, the boundary wall of the new extension would be dominant and intrusive in relation to the neighbouring property to the south, number 172. At present, the garden of that property is poorly maintained and appears to be little used. It is an asset to the house, however, and will have a long-term importance. The new extension would produce a large, blank two-storey wall adjacent to the rear of the building. Although it would be constructed on the northern boundary of the garden, and would not cause undue overshadowing, it would be overbearing and oppressive in its effect.

Evidently, the appeal site lies within an established urban area, which is “sustainable” in planning terms, and the proposed development would make a useful addition to the existing house. I am not convinced that the architectural qualities of the extension are so poor that it ought to be refused, but its impact on the living conditions of the neighbours would be unacceptable in planning terms, in my view. Appeal Decision: 6003974

I have been referred to other extensions in the vicinity but I have considered this proposal on its own merits and I am convinced that there are clear planning objections to it. Hence, I have concluded that the scheme before me would conflict with both national and local planning policies, especially Policy SP8 of the ‘Newham Local Plan 2018’. It ought not to be allowed, therefore, and, although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision.