Appeal 6007439

The appeal is dismissed.

The reason for refusal refers to inaccuracies in the plans which the officer report clarifies to relate to a door shown on the rear elevation of the existing plans at first floor. During my site visit, I observed that there was an opening present and therefore I find the plans to be an adequate representation of the existing site circumstances.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area; and, • the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at 162 and [address], with particular regard to outlook, privacy and noise and disturbance.

The appeal site is within a mixed use area comprised predominantly of commercial units at ground floor, with residential accommodation above. The building within the appeal site is representative of this character, forming part of a terraced row of three storey buildings.

Access to the rear of the site is via an existing car park which serves an adjacent retail store. To the rear of the terraced row, flat roofed single storey rear extensions are common, including those such as the one within the appeal site which extends across the majority of the length of the plot.

There are existing rear staircases to the rear of the terraced row. Notwithstanding that I do not have the status of these with regards to planning permission, I did not observe any staircases which are directly comparable to the design of the appeal proposal, which would also include an extensive length of balustrade to create a walkway across the existing flat roof addition.

Even though the appeal proposal would be located to the rear of the building, it would still be highly visible in the public realm, noting the accessibility to the rear of the site. Rather than screening or shielding the development, the existing ground floor extension would result in the balustrade being at first floor height, which would substantially increase the prominence of the appeal proposal.

The extent of the balustrade on either side of the proposed walkway would be significant, representing an obtrusive and incongruous addition. On this basis, I find that the appeal proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore be contrary to Policy LP26 of the Redbridge Local Plan (2018) (the Local Plan), which amongst other matters, seeks for development proposals to respect the local character of the area.

Policy LP26 of the Local Plan, in respect to living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, requires development to not have an adverse impact, including in terms of overlooking, privacy, outlook and noise.

It is reasonable for the occupiers of neighbouring properties to expect a greater degree of privacy to the windows at first floor. The use of the walkway in such close proximity to first floor neighbouring windows would result in a loss of privacy which would be materially harmful to the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers, particularly the occupiers of [address]. The occupiers of [address] would also be affected, albeit to a lesser degree given the separation from the walkway and the shared boundary with [address].

In addition, the balustrade associated with the proposed walkway would be a visible and dominating feature to the outlook of neighbouring windows, again, in particular to the occupiers of [address], given the proximity. This would also amount to harm to neighbouring living conditions given the extent of the proposed balustrade, across the whole length of the existing rear extension.

There is a suggestion that conditions could be imposed to protect the amenity of adjoining occupiers. Nevertheless, I have not been presented with suggested wording for such conditions, nor have I identified any conditions which in my view would mitigate the harm to neighbouring living conditions identified above.

I do not find that the associated comings and goings would noticeably increase noise and disturbance given the transient nature of the use of the walkway, and the context of the mixed-use surroundings. However, this does not alter my overall conclusions that the appeal proposal would have a harmful effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at 162 and [address], with particular regard to outlook and privacy. The proposal is therefore also contrary to Policy LP26 of the Local Plan in relation to this main issue.

The submitted planning statement suggests that a similar permission was granted by the Council in 2020, albeit no further details have been provided. I have therefore attached very little weight to this statement.

Through the relocation of the flat access to the rear of the site, internally the commercial unit would have a greater floor area. This would have associated economic benefits. However, the increase in floor area for the unit would be marginal. The benefits associated with the development are therefore not sufficient to outweigh the harm which I have identified above.

The appeal proposal would be contrary to the development plan when read as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.