First floor rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 March 2026 by J Bell-Williamson MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004240 41 Queens Road West, Plaistow, Newham, London E13 0PE • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs E Okesade against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Newham. • The application Ref is 25/02571/HH. • The development proposed is first floor rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area; and the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 39 Queens Road West, with regard to sunlight and daylight, and outlook. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling in a residential road of similar properties. The surrounding area is residential in character. 4. Policies SP1 and SP3 of the Newham Local Plan (2018) together require high quality development that should protect and enhance local character. 5. The proposal involves an upper floor extension above the existing single storey rear extension. There are no visible examples of two storey extensions on the same side of the street; properties reflect their original built form with uniform scale and proportions, and pitched roofs with gable ends. Rear gardens are of limited depth, with a railway line in cutting beyond these. No 41’s garden space is of particularly limited size due to the existing rear extension. 6. While the extension would be of proportionate depth to the host dwelling, it would however cover nearly the full width of the rear elevation and have a flat roof. The Appeal Decision 6004240 2 additional height and bulk in the limited space available would result in a cramped form of overdevelopment to the rear garden. Moreover, the flat roof would be a prominent addition to the property that would not respect the existing roof form. As such, its design would not visually integrate with the original built form of the host dwelling and would be uncharacteristic and incongruous in the wider setting. 7. The extension would be seen from properties opposite on the other side of the railway line and from neighbouring gardens, from which views the harmful effects described would be readily apparent. 8. Accordingly, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed extension would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Consequently, it is contrary to Policies SP1 and SP3 of the Newham Local Plan, as described. Living conditions 9. The extension would be directly next to the small upper floor window in No 39, the adjoining property. The appellant contends that this serves the landing of the neighbouring dwelling and, therefore, is not a habitable space. However, as it is the only upper floor window to the rear, given the proximity of the proposed extension to it and the relative orientation of the dwellings, there is likely to be a material loss of daylight and sunlight reaching the space that this window serves. 10. Furthermore, due to the limited size of the rear gardens, the additional height and bulk created directly next to the shared boundary would result in a dominant and overbearing built form experienced from No 39’s garden. As such, it would have a harmful effect on the use and enjoyment of this small external amenity area. 11. Therefore, taking these findings as a whole, I conclude that the proposal would have a materially harmful effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 39 Queens Road West, with regard to sunlight and daylight, and outlook. As such, it is contrary to Policy SP8 of the Newham Local Plan, which concerns neighbourly development, including the requirement to ensure adequate access to daylight and sunlight, and to minimise overbearing impact. Policy SP1 is less directly relevant to this issue in my reading of it. Conclusion 12. For the reasons given, it is concluded that the appeal should not succeed. J Bell-Williamson INSPECTOR