Appeal 6006207

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for rear extension to existing dwelling to create additional living accommodation over three floors, including new accommodation in roof loft space at [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2451/25, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing no’s: TRD-021 (proposed site plan topographical survey), TRD-023 (proposed elevations), and TRD-S251103-3 (floor plans proposed).

The balcony shown on the plans hereby approved shall not be first used until details of a privacy screen to be installed on the north elevation thereof have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved screen shall be installed prior to the first use of the balcony hereby permitted and retained thereafter.

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 scheme. 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 Number 406 [site address] (No 406) with particular regard to privacy and outlook.

The appeal building is in a residential area. Between it and [address], there is an allotment garden and a wide grass verge, affording the appeal site’s garden a generous and spacious outlook, which is further aided by the topography which slopes downhill away from the house. Housing in the area is varied, with examples of semi-detached pairs such as those facing the appeal site, and large detached properties. It was clear from my site visit that there have also been numerous alterations and extensions within the locality.

The appeal site comprises a detached, two storey dwelling of generous proportions. It is set back from [site address] beyond a deep horseshoe driveway with a hedge and shrubbery providing verdancy. Set in a generous plot, it has a large rear garden and is the end property in a short row of large houses. The frontage has two front gable-end projections, with a wide recessed entrance in the centre and the rear has a matching projecting gable end. It has already been extended to the rear at ground and first floor.

The proposed development would significantly increase the footprint and the bulk of the host dwelling. However, when viewed from the public domain along [address], the resultant building would appear consistent with the existing building line along [site address] . There is also a significant level of intervening greenery between this vantage point and the appeal plot, which already creates a diffused view of the site. This would reduce any monolithic impression of the resulting dwelling. The proposals would be appreciated in the context of the existing rhythm of development, which is made up of very large dwellings. Whilst extensive, the scheme would therefore respond appropriately to the built environment within which it sits.

The introduction of a crown roof to accommodate the depth and scale of the proposed extension would align with the numerous examples elsewhere locally, including immediately opposite the appeal site. There would be limited visibility of the crown roof due to the sloping topography in any case. The frontage would be minimally altered by the proposed development, with the addition of two small gabled dormers. These would respond well to the established building line of the host dwelling and furthermore, reflect the limited examples in the street scene. Their scale and location would assimilate well within the roofscape.

Overall, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore comply with Policy DM9 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033 [name] (2023) (LP) which requires all development to achieve a high quality of design and relate positively to their context.

Whilst not translating to a reason for refusal, the Council has expressed substantive concerns over the effect of the scheme on the outlook for occupiers of No 406. The proposed development would extend the appeal building rearwards to all but match the rear building line of No 406. Whilst this would result in an extension of some substance and depth, it would be experienced in the context of the otherwise unincumbered and spacious outlook for occupiers’ outdoor space due to the depth and openness of their own garden. The extensions would come no further rearward then No 406 and thus unlikely to materially affect outlook from rear windows.

The proposed balcony would project only marginally beyond the rearmost extent of the two proposed hipped roof rearward projections. This would therefore shield most sideways views therefrom which would allow oblique views into No 406’s rear garden. The installation of a suitable opaque screen to the north elevation of the balcony would eliminate these views entirely. Any from the balcony rearward would therefore, due to the restricted angle, by mainly of the far end of No 406’s rear garden. There is no compelling reason why any screen, which would be in the control of the Council to agree by condition (which the appellant is content with), cannot be so designed and sited to ensure there would be no other adverse effects arising therefrom.

With this and the above in mind, the appeal scheme would not have any adverse effects on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Specifically, No 406 in regard to outlook and privacy. As such, the proposals would comply with Policy DM9 of the LP which requires all new development to take account of the privacy of the development’s neighbours and avoid overlooking that would be detrimental to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Other than the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, a condition relating to matching materials is also necessary. The appellants have indicated that they would be agreeable to a condition requiring the addition of an obscured glazed screen to the balcony in the interests of maintaining privacy for the neighbouring occupiers. I agree that an appropriately worded condition is necessary; the details to be submitted to and agreed with the Council.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan. I therefore recommend it be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set out above.