Appeal 6006129

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.

It was clear from the site visit, that the development proposed has already been built and appeared to be in accordance with the plans before me. Therefore, I have considered the appeal on the basis that planning permission is sought retrospectively. For the purposes of the banner heading above, however, I have omitted the words ‘retention of existing’ and ‘retrospective’, as these do not constitute a description of development.

The main issues are the effect of the development on: • the character and appearance of the area; and • the living conditions of occupiers of 3 [site address] (No 3), with particular regard to outlook.

The appeal relates to a mid-terrace dwelling which, along with the adjoining property at No 1a, has a large outbuilding and small, courtyard style garden to the rear. Houses in the vicinity however typically have generous rear gardens, with those on this side of [site address] being predominantly long and narrow. While alterations and extensions to dwellings in the surrounding area are commonplace, including single-storey rear additions, these are generally modest in scale relative to the depth of their plots. Given the site’s close proximity to the higher-density development along [address], the prevailing pattern of spacious gardens provides a sense of openness and visual relief to the rear of the appeal site.

Even accounting for the previous additions to the appeal dwelling, due to its substantial depth combined with the limited size of the rear garden, the extension reads as an unduly large and bulky addition that is disproportionate to the size of the rear garden. Despite its single-storey height, flat roof and siting to the rear of the dwelling, this gives the appeal site a markedly overdeveloped appearance that is at odds with the generally spacious pattern of development along [address].

The Council’s Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (2019) (SPD) advises that single-storey rear extensions should not dominate the host or original property or project too far into the garden. For terraced dwellings, the SPD specifies a maximum depth of 3.5 metres. I accept that the appeal property benefits from prior approval ([name]: 0446/22) for a 6 metre deep rear extension. However, at 8 metres in depth, the appeal development substantially exceeds both the guidance contained in the SPD and the permitted development limitations for such development.

I am not aware of the planning status or circumstances of each of the extensions referred to by the appellant. That said, from what I saw, other than the extension at No 1a, the cited examples are not as deep as the development before me, nor are the gardens they occupy as compact. The commercial properties on [address] also differ in orientation, scale and appearance to the houses to the rear and the overdevelopment of the garden erodes the spacious character of [site address] . As such, these other buildings are not directly comparable to the appeal extension, nor do they justify the harm identified.

For the above reasons, the development has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It is therefore contrary to Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 (2018) (LP) which, amongst other things, promote high quality design that respects the local character of the area, and for extensions to maintain or improve the appearance of the locality.

As a result of its significant scale and prominent siting along the shared boundary with No 3, the flank elevation of the extension appears dominant and overbearing when experienced from the patio area of this neighbouring property. While storage units have been erected by the occupiers of No 3, restricting the outlook from the windows, these do not completely obscure the extension when viewed from the rear garden, and it still appears as a substantial and continuous solid structure.

The 45-degree rule in the SPD relates to two storey and first floor extensions rather than single storey additions so is not directly relevant here. I accept that both the prior approval proposal and the appeal development would result in loss of outlook from the rear patio doors of No. 3. However, the depth of this extension, at 8 metres rather than the 6 metres with approval, is substantial and results in a greater level of enclosure. This is particularly apparent given the narrow width of the neighbouring patio, even though views down the garden have been retained.

I note that no objections were received from the occupiers of No 3 in relation to the appeal scheme or the prior approval. However, the lack of objections is not determinative, since there could be a number of reasons why no comments were made. The absence of an objection does not therefore justify granting permission.

Consequently, the development has a harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 3, with particular regard to outlook. It therefore conflicts with Policies LP26 and LP30 of the LP which require, amongst other criteria, that development does not result in an adverse impact upon the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and that proposals respect the Council’s SPD, which sets out that extensions should not be overbearing or cause a significant loss of outlook.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I 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.