Appeal 6005176

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at 25 and [address] (Nos 25 and 29), with particular regard to privacy.

Number [site address] (No 27B) is an upper flat occupying the first and second floor, with 27A occupying the ground floor of an end of terrace building. The shared garden is accessed by the occupiers of No 27B via the front entrance and a side passage leading to the rear. At the time of my site visit, No 27B was undergoing renovation and benefits from planning permission for extensions and alterations1. It contains a number of windows in its rear elevation, including to the side of its outrigger.

Due to the absence of and/or limited height of boundary treatments along the shared boundaries, together with the close proximity of neighbouring windows, intervisibility between and into neighbouring gardens is prevalent. As a result, the gardens serving Nos 25 and 29 already experience a degree of mutual overlooking, which is not atypical of the residential area within which they sit.

The proposed first-floor platform at the top of the stairs would be modest in terms of size. The appellant asserts that it would be too small to allow for any form of recreational use. While it would be compact, it would nonetheless be sufficient in size to accommodate a limited outdoor sitting space, such as a small bistro style table and chairs, and would therefore have the potential to be used for informal sitting out rather than serving solely as a means of access. [name] acknowledge that the rear garden provides a larger area, the evidence before me indicates this 1 Council ref: DC/25/140375 space is shared, which would increase the desirability of use of the private platform area.

Unlike views obtained from windows, which are typically more constrained in their angle and extent, the provision of a platform would enable occupiers to stand, sit, linger and orientate themselves in a range of directions. Its height and position along the shared boundary, could facilitate more prolonged and a greater range of direct views from an elevated position into the gardens of Nos 25 and 29. Such occurrences would be readily perceptible to occupiers of these neighbouring properties.

A privacy screen is proposed along the shared boundary, which may assist in screening some views from the existing opening within the rear of No 27B towards the rear garden of No 25. It would also assist in limiting sideways views towards the immediate rear of No 25 from the platform. The staircase itself may also filter some views from the ground floor window of No 27A towards the neighbouring garden of No 25. However, the privacy screen would not prevent overlooking from the staircase itself to the area immediately to the rear of No 25. Nor would it prevent close range views of other parts of the rear garden of No 25 from being achieved from the platform area. It would also increase the range of views achievable to the rear garden of No 29.

Although movements on the steps would be transitory, it would nonetheless introduce additional opportunities, closer than the views from the existing windows, for direct views into the adjacent private garden areas of Nos 25 and 29. Overall, despite the existing levels of overlooking, the proposed development would result in a materially worse level of overlooking for the occupiers of Nos 25 and 29.

I have considered whether or not a condition could be imposed to ensure that the proposed staircase, including its platform, is used for access only and not for any recreational purpose. However, such a condition would be difficult to enforce and would not therefore meet the relevant conditions tests2.

I conclude that the proposed development would result in a harmful effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of Nos 25 and 29, with particular regard to privacy. In this regard it would conflict with Policy QD9 of the Lewisham Local Plan (2025) which requires development proposals to not adversely impact on or result in the loss of, the amenity of neighbouring properties, including back gardens.

For the same reasons, the proposed development would conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework insofar as it requires a high standard of amenity for existing users and the guidance in the Council’s Alterations and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2019) which states that the Council will not support external platforms and staircases where they are likely to give rise to overlooking and loss of privacy.

The appellant has drawn my attention to an appeal decision that was allowed at Lawrie Park Road3. However, in that case the staircase was positioned to the side, rather than to the rear of the outrigger, and the configuration and extent of the 2 paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 3 Appeal ref: APP/C5690/W/24/3354656 platform differ from the proposal before me. The Council has, in turn, referred to a dismissed appeal at Kitto Road4. Neither example is located on [address] and therefore neither shares the same site-specific context. The appellant has also provided aerial images of properties in the wider area which appear to include external staircases. However, the planning circumstances in those cases are not before me. In any event, I have determined the appeal on its own merits, having regard to the site-specific context, and these examples do not alter/have not been determinative in my overall findings.

The Council identified no other harm in respect of ecology, character and appearance, or other living conditions including noise, outlook or light. It is also noted that no representations were received from interested parties during the application process. Nevertheless, these considerations are not a reason to allow the appeal given the harm identified in relation to the main issue.

While the appellant asserts that the proposed development could facilitate the refurbishment and repair of the original outhouse structure, there are likely to be other ways of addressing this and the proposed development is unlikely to be the only method of facilitating such repair works.

The proposed development would provide more direct access to the rear garden for the occupiers of No 27B, thereby reducing the need to pass directly in front of the windows and doors serving No 27A. This would be of benefit to the occupiers of No 27B since the existing route via the front of the property is less convenient, particularly for adults supervising children. However, that route remains practicable, and movements between the front and the rear would in any event be relatively brief and likely continue even if the external staircase could be constructed.

The staircase would also provide an alternative means of escape, which could offer some safety benefit. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that, without the proposed development, the property would fail to meet building regulations or other safety requirements.

The proposed development would give rise to limited employment benefits during the construction phase.

Overall, given that the proposed development is small-scale and domestic in nature, any associated benefits would be limited and would not justify the harm that I have identified. On this basis, the proposed development would not constitute sustainable development.

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. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.