Appeal 6005457

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the Construction of a single storey rear extension, first floor rear extension and dormer roof extension to main rear roof, together with installation of one roof light and two solar panels to front roof slope; Alterations to front and rear elevation comprising of replacement windows and front door; and Construction of front boundary wall and installation of metal gate and bike storage to front garden at [site address] , Walthamstow, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 252250, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: A10, A11, A100, A101, A102, A110, A111, A112, A113, A120, A121, A200, A201, A202, A203, A210 [name], A211 [name], A212 [name], A213 [name], A220 [name], A221 [name], and A222 [name].

I noted that following the submission of the planning application the Council amended the description of development to incorporate, amongst other things, the proposed construction of the front boundary wall, installation of a metal gate and bike storage to the front garden. I have not been made aware that the appellant objected to this change and therefore I have incorporated it within the banner heading and my decision above and have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are the effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the area; and upon the living conditions of the occupants of [address], with specific reference to outlook, sunlight and daylight.

The appeal dwelling comprises a mid-terrace house with a single storey lean-to extension to the rear which currently fills the width of the site. There are many examples within the locality of rear extensions both at ground floor level and above; and [address] adjoining has a high flat roof single storey extension built on the boundary shared with the appeal site. The single storey extension of the scheme before me would extend for the same depth as this neighbouring extension although it would have a recessed courtyard on the opposite side, where adjacent to the boundary shared with [address].

The boundary with no55 is demarcated by a close-boarded fence and that property also has a single storey flat roof extension set away from the boundary, and which forms a lightwell for a frosted glass window and door facing the appeal site, as well as a habitable room window in the rear elevation of the main range. The extension at no55 is higher than that proposed, but by virtue of its single storey form does not unnecessarily curtail outlook, especially from the rear facing window of that dwelling.

I note that the Council’s Residential Extensions and [name] states that it is often inappropriate to infill an L-shaped dwelling as this can create a tunnel effect for neighbours, but whilst no55 does not benefit from an infill extension, its single storey rear extension is quite clearly a later edition to the neighbouring dwelling as originally built.

Whilst the proposed single storey rear extension to the appeal dwelling would extend along the shared boundary beyond the aforementioned proposed lightwell, nonetheless by virtue of its limited height, I consider that it would still afford adequate outlook from the neighbouring property; and in many ways would not be wholly different to the existing relationship between nos 51 and 53.

[name] consider that the effect upon the daylight received from the habitable room window of no55 would also not be demonstrably reduced and by virtue of its orientation of north-north-east I consider that no overshadowing or consequent lack of sunlight would be caused either.

The appeal scheme is of a contemporary design, such that it would run counter to the more traditional forms of development that have been constructed in the past within the wider terrace. However, the Council do not object to the aesthetics of the scheme per se, but are more concerned with the cumulative increase at ground floor level in terms of depth, width and height. The single storey element of the scheme would be relatively cuboid in nature, nonetheless its flat roof form would keep the overall height of the extension down and, on balance, I consider that it would not represent a bulky, dominant or insubordinate form of development upon the host property and local area.

Consequently, I consider that the scheme would protect the character and appearance of the area in compliance with Policy D4 of the London Plan (2021) and Policy 53 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan LP1 (2024) which together require developments to deliver high quality design, including reinforcing and/or enhancing local character and distinctiveness, whilst responding appropriately to the context in terms of scale, height and massing. In addition, for the reasons given above, I consider that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupants of no55 and in that respect also complies with Local Plan Policy 57 which requires new development to respect the amenity of existing and future occupiers, neighbours and the surrounding area by, amongst other things, avoiding harmful impacts from enclosure, outlook and daylight/sunlight.

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed.

In addition to the standard time limit condition I consider that it is appropriate to require the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the area.