Appeal 6007487

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers.

The appeal dwelling is a two storey semi-detached house, located within a street of similarly designed and scaled semi-detached houses, in a predominantly residential area. Its front garden predominantly given over to hard standing for car parking and to the rear is a good sized rear garden. This is accessible from a relatively narrow side passage shared with the neighbouring semi-detached house at [address] (No.31).

The appeal dwelling has been extended to its rear with a single storey flat roofed extension that is the full width of the appeal dwelling and extends approximately 5 metres into the rear garden. At roof level is a full width rear dormer extension with a hip to gable alteration to the main house. These existing extensions benefit from a certificate of lawfulness for the dormer and with prior approval having been issued for the single storey extension.

From my site visit it is evident that the proposed first floor rear extension has been commenced but not completed. This is located above the existing first floor rear extension and is approximately two thirds of the width of the main house and is positioned to align with its gabled end flank wall. The proposal projects approximately 3 metres rearward from the original rear wall of the main house.

The submitted drawings show that the proposed first floor extension would have a hipped roof that would connect with the main rear roof slope, substantially below the main roof ridge. However, the constriction of the hipped roof of the proposal would require the removal of the existing rear roof dormer and a return to a hipped rather than gabled flank. As the appellant has not indicated otherwise, I have considered the proposal in accordance with the terms of the original application and the plans submitted with it, which does not indicate the dormer extension being present within the main rear roof slope or hip to gable alteration.

The Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011) (the SPD) provides design guidance, including for two storey rear extensions to semi-detached properties. In general form the appeal proposal meets this guidance in terms of its width and projection at first floor level and its roof form. However, the distance to the boundary with No.31 would be approximately 0.8 metres and not the recommended 2 metres. This distance to the boundary is recommended to protect the amenity of neighbouring properties, with mention of privacy, maintaining sunlight and daylight and a reasonable outlook from adjoining properties.

Given the proximity of the proposal to the boundary of No.31, in combination with its height and projection rearward, the proposal would be overbearing when viewed from the rear rooms and rear garden of the appeal dwelling. This includes from the clear plastic roofed gazebo at the rear of No.31 and the first floor rooms in No.31 that do not have obscured glazing, the nearest of which sits with a notional 45 degree angle from the rear nearest rearmost edge of the proposal. This would result in an unacceptable enclosing effect to the rear of this neighbouring dwelling.

This overbearing and enclosing effect would result in significant detriment in the outlook from No.31 and the presence of the proposed extension would be experienced by the occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling as oppressive. As such, the proposal does not reflect the design advice given in the SPD and fails to meet its objectives in protecting the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

In their statement the appellant has made reference to a planning application 1 approved by the Council for a part single and part two storey side and rear extensions at [address] that the appellant states would be less than 2 metres to the boundary. However, I have not been provided with any further details or written material that relate to this approved application. At the time of its approval, this would have been considered on its own merits, and I have done likewise in my consideration of the appeal proposal, which is a main tenet of the planning system. I have, therefore only afforded this only limited weight as an exemplar for the appeal proposal.

For these reasons, the proposal would result in substantial harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers. This would be contrary to Policy 7 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021), which seeks development that ensures the amenity and quality of life of existing residents, including through loss of outlook.

The appeal is dismissed.