Appeal 6004719

The appeal is dismissed.

I note that part of the development has already been carried out. The extension has been constructed but the patio door has not been installed. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal provides acceptable living conditions for existing and future occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of amenity space; and • whether the development exposes existing and neighbouring occupiers to an unacceptable fire safety risk.

The appeal site comprises a mid-terraced house in a residential street. There is a small hardstanding area in front of the dwelling. The properties in the terrace have small rear gardens and the site forms part of an approved development1 where permitted development rights for rear extensions and structures were restricted. The proposal is for a single storey rear extension.

The Council’s Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document 2025 includes guidance on rear extensions, stating that they must not take up more than 50% of the total rear garden space. 1 Planning permission ref 95/AP/0592

The Council indicates that the rear garden was originally around 22sqm. The parties dispute the amount of rear outdoor space that remains following construction of the extension, with the Council indicating this to be around 7.75sqm and the appellant stating that it is around 8.3sqm. Whichever figure is used, the extension occupies considerably more than 50% of the rear garden.

The rear garden space was modest to begin with, and only a relatively narrow strip sandwiched between boundary walls and fences now remains. Its small size makes this outdoor area inadequate for a family dwelling. As such, the proposed extension has resulted in an unacceptable loss of outdoor amenity space for existing and future occupiers of the house.

It is indicated that the extension only occupies around 37% of the original front and rear outside spaces. However, the front hardsurfaced area is open to the street, providing pedestrian and vehicular access to the property. As such, it does not function as private, usable outdoor space and does not replace the need to retain an adequately sized rear garden.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal provides unacceptable living conditions for existing and future occupiers, with particular regard to the provision of amenity space. This is contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan 2021 (London Plan) and Policies P15 and P56 of the Southwark Plan 2022. Together, these require development to provide high quality accommodation which does not cause an unacceptable loss of amenity to present or future occupiers, including the provision of usable private amenity space.

Fire safety compliance is covered by the Building Regulations. Nonetheless, to ensure that proposals meet the highest standards of fire safety, Policy D12 of the London Plan 2021 (London Plan) sets out various requirements in this regard. This includes ensuring that developments are constructed in an appropriate way to minimise the risk of fire spread.

The appellant’s [name] (FSS) sets out measures to address fire safety issues. It indicates that as the extension is a dining room, there are no cooking appliances, open flames or electric heating elements, and this was evident at my site visit. It also outlines that no additional fire-resistant separation is required as it is a single storey extension.

The FSS states that the proposed construction materials are appropriate given the use and height of the extension and the presence of fire detection and suppression measures. However, due to the timber construction with uPVC cladding and the location of the extension less than 1m from the neighbouring property, the Council raises concerns regarding the potential for external fire spread.

No building control certificate has been submitted, and the Council’s Building Control Manager advises that the combination of combustible materials and the proposed siting give rise to fire safety concerns. The extension has a ceiling mounted smoke alarm and portable fire extinguisher, and the FSS sets out means of escape and provision for emergency access in the event of a fire. Nevertheless, these measures do not address the fire risks associated with the construction materials nor demonstrate how fire spread between buildings is to be mitigated.

Consequently, I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the development does not expose existing and neighbouring occupiers to an unacceptable fire safety risk. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with Policy D12 of the London Plan.

The proposed scheme is intended to provide usable dining accommodation for family members in a multi-generational household, including those with mobility needs. Therefore, I have had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The duty includes having regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and advance equality of opportunity between those sharing relevant protected characteristics and those who do not. [name] am mindful of the needs of the family members, it has not been demonstrated that the scale of the proposal is specific to their needs, or that they cannot be met by a less harmful scheme. Thus, the PSED considerations do not outweigh the harm that I have identified, and following careful consideration of these matters, I am satisfied that the impact of dismissing this appeal is proportionate and justified.

The appellant states that the proposed development improves thermal performance, but there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that this is a benefit of the proposed scheme.

There is reference to the Council’s approval of a several other single storey domestic extensions in the vicinity where it did not find harm in terms of living conditions and fire safety. However, limited information on those proposals has been submitted so I am unable to compare them with the scheme before me.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including character and appearance, neighbouring living conditions and impacts on heritage assets. Nonetheless, even if I were to agree with the Council on these points, the absence of harm is a neutral matter which does not carry weight in favour of the scheme.

The appellant has expressed general dissatisfaction with the Council’s validation and communication on the application, but this is a matter between those parties and does not in this instance have any bearing on my determination of this appeal.

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