Appeal 6006074

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. The original description set out above accurately reflects the development. The main issues in regard to which are its effect on a) the character and appearance of the area; and b) the living conditions of the occupiers of Numbers 125, 127 and 129 (No 125, 127 and 129) [address] in terms of privacy.

The appeal building is a semi-detached dwelling which has been altered in the past but currently retains its primarily original appearance. Surrounding dwellings on the street have experienced significant extensions to the side and rear however, they remain clearly subservient and allow the evolution of the building to be read. Whilst some of the typical London suburb appearance feel has been noticeably diluted, there remains some quality in local consistency in this respect. This contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The first-floor side extension would be over the single storey existing element and is to meet the same eaves and ridge height of the existing dwelling with a hip to gable roofline. The Redbridge Supplementary Planning Document 2019 (SPD) advises that two storey side extensions should be set down and set back from the main dwelling to be proportionate and subordinate. The lack of this in the scheme would highlight its lack of subservience against the existing dwelling and create a dominant and obtrusive feature in the street scene. The resultant scheme would give the impression of a much larger width and span given its wrap around nature which would subsume the original dwelling. Whilst the SPD is only a guide, the departure from the guidance would create a dwelling unbefitting to the street scene and it would highlight its incongruity to the wider more sympathetic design forms.

There is some dispute between the main parties on the proposed width of the first-floor rear element. However, in both circumstances it would be more than half that of the dwelling and include the new side extension element. The SPD references how extensions should generally not exceed this. There is some flexibility by virtue of the wording, however for this case it would be seen as a large and imposing feature on the rear elevation almost obscuring the original rear elevation. Collectively, the features described form a dwelling which would be large and stand out against the collective more consistent building forms on the street scene.

The appellant has given examples of other similar development in the vicinity of a lack of subserviency in terms of ridge height or set back. I have no indication on the wider street scene which would justify these larger examples. They are not on the same road as the appeal site so their presence would not warrant a departure from my current recommendation. With this and the above in mind, the proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. This would lead to conflict with Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan

Together, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard.

The proposal features a new window on the side elevation which would face towards Nos 125, 127 and 129. The window serving bedroom 5 would not be obscurely glazed. Notwithstanding that a condition could be imposed to obscure the glazing, it would still give the impression of overlooking. However, there is a large separation distance and a change of land levels between the properties and even with the resultant room being a bedroom, the additional window would not result in harmful overlooking that would amount to an unacceptable loss of privacy. The views experienced would be no different than the existing window notwithstanding that it would be somewhat closer. Moreover, there is sufficient greenery to screen between the buildings to not give rise to harmful overlooking effects.

With these matters in mind, the effect would not translate to harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos 125, 127 and 129. Resultantly, this part of the proposal would comply with Policies LP26 and LP30 of the LP which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that the living conditions of the occupiers of properties are protected.

The scheme would conflict with the development plan on the first main issue. The lack of harm on the second would not weigh in its favour. It would be neutral. I have been given no other compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced, to recommend an outcome other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.