Appeal 6005946

The appeal is dismissed.

I saw on my site inspection that there was no outbuilding within the rear garden of the appeal site. The appeal has been determined on this basis.

The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the host property and the immediate area, with particular regard to its layout, scale and design; and, • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, with particular regard to privacy, sunlight, daylight and outlook.

The appeal property is a two storey, mid-terraced property (no’s 5 and 7) containing a ground floor and first floor flat, each with their own front doors; the appeal relates to the ground floor flat. The appeal property is part of a terrace of similar properties, which are repeated on the opposite side of the road, behind (on [address]) and nearby on parts of [address]. These distinctive properties have rear two storey flat roofed projections paired with an adjoining property. The appeal property’s rear two storey projection is paired with no’s 1 and 3, as the projection is not the full width of their gardens, there are small rectangular courtyards to the sides of them. The appeal property’s courtyard adjoins the courtyard at no’s 9 and 11, and both have external staircases that provide access from a door on the side of the rear projections at a height midway between the ground and first floor levels. On my site inspection I did not observe any other infill and rearward extensions to the nearby similar terraced properties.

Policy Q11 of the Lambeth Local Plan 2020–2035, adopted September 2021 (LLP), amongst other things, supports full width rear and infill extensions, providing they are subordinate to the host property, and respond positively to its architecture and roof form, including distinctive group characteristics. [name] 4, Building Alterations, Extensions and Retrofit, dated August 2023 (SPD), which is a material consideration, says infill extensions, including those that extend beyond the rear side can be acceptable, providing they are subordinate, and whilst no rearward projection distance is specified, it says regard should be had to the prevailing character. Figure 5 within the SPD shows sketches of acceptable and unacceptable infill extensions. The SPD also says external staircases should be of an appropriate form, design and scale for the host building, and avoid excessive rearward projection.

Notwithstanding the in-principle support for the infill and full-width extensions outlined above, and that the proposal is similar to an acceptable sketch of an infill extension within the SPD, its proposed layout, width, and significant projection beyond the rear side of the appeal property, would together create a discordant arrangement in this case, particularly considering the mainly unaltered surrounding properties, contrary to the prevailing character of the area. This would be exacerbated by its significant height at some 3 metres or so, with an alien and higher roof form featuring 3 no. raised lanterns, not reflecting either the flat or pitched roof at the appeal property. It is noted a small courtyard would be retained immediately beyond its rear side, but its overly contrived design, large footprint, and unsympathetic roof design would combine to give an incongruous appearance, and it would not be subordinate to the host property. As a result, it would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property.

Although the proposed new external staircase would be a lightweight structure in a simple design, a significant part of it would be at a raised level, including above the proposed extension, and it would also extend much further beyond it. Furthermore, its siting would appear alien amongst the surrounding terraces of largely unaltered rear elevations. Notwithstanding that the existing boundary fences would screen some views of it at a lower level, it would still be seen from surrounding properties, and it would not appear subordinate to the host property, causing further harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the immediate area.

Whilst the proposed development would not be seen from public viewpoints, this is not a reason to allow poor design. Furthermore, it would be seen from several of the surrounding properties on [address], and from the rear sides of nearby properties on [address] and [address]. Its excessive scale, unsympathetic roof design and visual dominance, which could be seen from those properties above nearby boundary treatments, and the resulting appearance of the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the immediate area.

It is noted that the proposed new side door would have a sympathetic relationship with the host property, and that matching and sympathetic external materials, including slim line window frames, could be used to harmonise with the existing building, but this would not address the above identified harm. Furthermore, even though the appeal property is not part of a heritage asset and that the proposed development may not cover more than 50% of its outside space, the proposed extension would occupy a significant part of its rear garden and fail to have a subordinate relationship with it.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the immediate area, and it would be contrary to LLP policies Q2, Q5, Q8 and Q11 that amongst other things require the design of new development, including full width and rear extensions, to positively respond to the original architecture and roof form of the host property, including locally distinctive townscape character, in terms of their scale and layout, and to be subordinate and not unacceptably dominate the host building. In addition, whilst the SPD offers some qualified support for the proposed extension, there would also be conflict with the SPD, in terms of the proposed extension’s lack of subordination and it failing to respect the prevailing character of the area. The proposed development would also conflict with paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as it requires development to add to the overall quality of an area, be visually attractive, and to be sympathetic to local character.

LLP Policy Q2 says development will be supported if there are acceptable standards of amenity, including privacy, adequate outlook without an undue sense of enclosure, and no unacceptable impact on daylight and sunlight. Its supporting text says established industry standards will be used to assess schemes, including ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight’ (BRE Trust, 2011). In addition, the SPD says that infill extensions such as this, should not cause harm to amenity, and recognises that side spaces to the rear can be quite narrow between properties and amenity issues (especially daylight and outlook) will be important considerations, it adds that when assessing applications the Council will have regard to Building Research Establishment (BRE) ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: a guide to good practice’ (BRE209 2022) (the later version).

In terms of the effect on outlook, daylight and sunlight, the Council has identified the occupiers of no’s 7 and 9 as most likely to be affected. and based on my site observations I see no reason to disagree. I also saw on my site inspection that no’s 9 and 11 on the side of its rear projection had 3 no. openings at ground floor level, and a ground floor window on its rear elevation that would likely be impacted the most by the proposed extension.

The Council referred to an assessment (understood to be based on BRE guide) it undertook on elevation and plan view of windows on the rear side projection of no’s 7 and 9 (the neighbouring property), which is said where interrupted by the proposed extension on a 45-degree horizontal line and by a 25-degree vertical line. No details of this assessment have been provided, furthermore neither has the appellant provided a daylight or sunlight assessment in accordance with the BRE209 2022 standards, to show otherwise. Given the close arrangement between side windows on the rear projection of no’s 9 and 11 and the proposed extension’s scale and height, without a daylight and sunlight assessment, I cannot be certain that adequate daylight and sunlight could be provided to ensure neighbouring occupiers had satisfactory living conditions.

The basic sketches within the SPD of acceptable infill extensions do not show any detail in respect of neighbouring openings, and the same SPD also says regard should be had to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and BRE guides for daylight and sunlight. The SPD is an important consideration, but it is not decisive, and it should not override development plan policy and the requirement to ensure satisfactory living conditions for neighbouring occupiers.

The ground floor window nearest no’s 9 and 11’s external staircase would be most affected and face directly towards the side of the proposed extension at a very close range. Even taking into consideration the height of the existing boundary fence, along with the position of the existing external staircases and rear projections, and that the room it serves could be a kitchen with high ceilings, the considerable length and 3 metre or so height of the proposed extension would introduce a very pronounced mass much closer to the window, which would significantly restrict views out of that window and create an enclosing and harmful outlook for the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Given that a small courtyard is proposed immediately beyond the rear elevation of the host property, the 2-no ground floor windows closest to no’s 9 and 11’s rear elevation, would have a similar direct outlook towards the appeal properties existing rear projection and tall boundary fence separating the respective properties. Similarly, the ground floor rear window on no’s 9 and 11 would continue to look directly towards its own rear garden, and no harmful effects to outlook would arise in respect of the outlook from those 3 no. windows. However, this would not outweigh the lack of information to demonstrate that they would all have adequate daylight and sunlight.

In respect of the proposed external staircase, the SPD says direct access from upper floor accommodation to rear gardens is often desirable, but resulting overlooking can have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring property.

The altered fire escape would be used in the event of a fire or in an emergency, to provide safe means of escape, which is said to comply with the building regulations. With the appellant said to have exclusive use of the rear garden, which would not be available for use by the occupiers of the first floor flat, and given that the proposed staircase and access across the proposed roof would be obtained via a first floor window, the staircase would likely be rarely used, except in emergencies. Even considering the close and raised arrangement of the proposed staircase and walkway, with this very low usage, it is unlikely that any unacceptable privacy effects would arise for the occupiers of the neighbouring property, no’s1 and 3, or no’s [address] that would be most likely to be affected. In the event the appeal was to be allowed a condition could be imposed that the first-floor walkway was not used other than in emergencies, to prevent occupiers from sitting or standing on it for a sustained period of time. In view of this, there would not be any unacceptable privacy effects arising from the proposed development.

I therefore conclude that whilst there would be no unacceptable privacy effects for neighbouring occupiers, the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at the ground floor flat at no’s 9 and 11 in terms of outlook, and there would be inadequate information provided to demonstrate that there would be satisfactory daylight and sunlight provided for the occupiers of that same ground floor flat. In doing so, I find the proposed development would conflict with LLP Policy Q2 in terms of there not being an adequate outlook, and it not being demonstrated that there would be an acceptable impact on daylight and sunlight for adjoining occupiers. In addition, there would also be conflict with paragraph 135 of the Framework, insofar as it requires a high standard of amenity for new and existing users.

It is acknowledged that the appeal property is not listed or part of a designated heritage asset; that the proposed development is said to comply with relevant space standards and allows the property to be re-configured internally to improve the accommodation and add an extra bedroom; and that the garden would be above the minimum size. However, these points do not outweigh my findings above.

It has been said that the existing external staircase is not compliant with the Building Regulations and that its low height restricts movements within the rear garden of the appeal site. Be that as it may, these aspects would not justify the identified harm in this case. Nor am I certain that the proposed development is the only means of addressing these issues.

I therefore conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no other considerations, including those raised by the appellant, which outweigh that conflict. For the reasons outlined above, the appeal should be dismissed.