Appeal 6005739

The appeal is dismissed.

As the description of development varies between submitted documents, I have used that from the Council’s decision notice as this is a concise and accurate description of the proposal that has also been used by the appellant for their statement.

The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers.

The appeal dwelling is a two storey semi-detached house located within a street fronted by semi-detached houses one side and the open space at [name] on the other. Due to the houses fronting the street mediating the natural topography, many have a change in ground level compared to their semidetached pair and a step in their shared roof. This is true of the appeal dwelling, where there is a stepdown from the ground level of the appeal dwelling and its semi-detached pair at 104 Edgecoombe (No.104).

The proposal is for a flat roofed brick built single storey rear extension 3.18 metres in height above the existing ground floor level of the appeal dwelling. This would be positioned approximately 0.1 metres in from the boundary wall with No.104 where it connects to the rear of the appeal dwelling. It would project into the rear garden with a length of 5.25 metres and be 4 metres in width. From the boundary side of the proposal, the proposal would reach across approximately 2 thirds of the rear elevation of the appeal dwelling, across where there is one of two existing windows. It would connect back to the main house directly adjacent to the second retained window.

From my site visit, it is evident that, due to the change in ground levels between the appeal dwelling and its semi-detached pair of approximately 0.75 metres, the proposal would have a terminal height above the ground level of No.104 that would be just slightly less than 4 metres. Combined with the 5 metre length of the proposed extension and its proximity to the boundary, this would result in the proposal appearing prominently in views from the rear ground floor glazed doors and window of No.104, as well as from that part of the garden nearest to the house of this neighbouring property.

[name] note that the occupiers of No.104 have not objected to the proposal, this does not prevent me from identifying harm when coming to my decision. Due to its extent, position on the boundary and approximate height of 4 metres when viewed from No.104, the bulk and massing of the proposal would result in the windowless brick flank of the proposed extension appearing as overbearing. This would further result in a significant increase in the sense of enclosure that would be unacceptable when compared to the existing boundary wall and fence between the semi-detached pair. This would be significantly detrimental to the outlook from No.104 and would be experienced by its occupiers as oppressive.

For these reasons, I find that the proposal would result in substantial harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of No.104. This would conflict with Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and Policies D3 of the London Plan

Collectively these seek development that, amongst other matters, delivers appropriate outlook and does not harm the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

The Council’s decision finds that the appeal development is contrary to Policy D6 of the London Plan (2021). However, as this policy relates to the quality and standards of new housing provision, I have not come to this same conclusion.

As part of the appellant’s design and access statement submitted with the original application and their statement submitted with the appeal, the appellant has set out their argument that the proposal would better meet their care and access needs. Therefore, in exercising my function on behalf of a public authority, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in the Equality Act

The Act sets out the relevant protected characteristics which include disability. Since there is the potential for my decision to affect persons with a protected characteristic, I have had due regard to the three equality principles set out in Section 149 of the Act.

The proposed development would provide additional accommodation space for the appellant’s care and access needs. However, having due regard to this, and the need to eliminate discrimination and promote equality of opportunity, I am satisfied that this issue does not outweigh the harm that I have identified above.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated conflict with the

Furthermore, I have had due regard to the PSED set out under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. However, the harm caused by the proposed development outweighs its benefits in eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity, and fostering good relations for persons with the protected characteristics of disability. I therefore conclude that it is proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal.