Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 May 2026 by C J Leigh BSc(Hons) MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005731 56 Plumtree Drive, Harlow, Essex, CM17 0FP • 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 Mr Yunus Enish against the decision of Harlow Council. • The application Ref is HW/HSE/25/00464. • The development proposed is a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposed development on, firstly, the living conditions of adjoining occupiers and, secondly, the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons Living conditions 3. Policy PL1 of the Harlow Local Development Plan 2020 (LDP) sets out the design principles for development, which includes development being informed by the local context and taking into consideration the Harlow Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Policy PL2 of the LDP supports development that preservers or enhances the amenity of occupants. 4. Principle DG47 of the SPD relates to residential extensions and states that proposals should, amongst other matters, have consideration to the visual amenity of neighbouring properties. The SPD Addendum 2021 gives further guidance for rear extensions and says such proposals should comply with specified guidance, which includes a maximum height for a flat roof of 3m. It is further said that, in general, a depth is not to exceed 4m states, but that this is subject to other considerations. 5. The rear extension proposed in this appeal are shown in the drawings to be 4.388m deep along the boundary with the neighbouring house of 54 Plumtree Drive, with a flat roof 3.082m high at the eaves reducing to 2.969m. Whilst these dimensions are close to the guidance in the SPD Addendum, that is not the full picture in this instance. The appeal property currently extends deeper into the garden area than the attached neighbour of No. 54 with a two storey projection, 3.278m deep, which is an original element of the design of this modern estate. This means that, if the Appeal Decision 6005731 2 proposed single extension was to be built, the cumulative length of the rear projection of No. 56 on the boundary with No. 54 would be around 7.7m. 6. Although the current proposal is single storey, it would still present a sizeable bulk above the boundary fence. The set-back of the extension from the boundary fence would not mitigate this bulk. The mass and extent of the proposed extension would then, when considered cumulatively with the existing built form on the boundary of the two storey projection, result in an overbearing impact on the occupiers of No. 54. 7. The location of the extension to the north of No. 54 would not impact on levels of light. However, it is the adverse effect on outlook from that property which leads to the impact on the living conditions of adjoining occupiers. 8. On the first issue it is therefore concluded that the proposal would conflict with Policy PL2 of the LDP and the SPD, which seek to ensure the amenity of occupants is preserved and, due to the conflict with the SPD, the scheme is contrary to Policy PL1 insofar as it requires development to take into consideration that SPD. Character and appearance 9. The appeal property lies within a modern estate where there is variety in the design and siting of houses, with the layout, plot size and relationship between houses clearly chosen to avoid a monotonous appearance to both the street and private garden areas. This is seen at No. 56 itself, whose garden is larger than other houses due to its corner location. There is also a large covered car port to the east which is visible in private and public views. 10. The proposed extension would reduce the garden area to No. 56. However, a sizeable open area would be retained due to the relatively large size of that garden. The position of the extension to the rear of the house means there would not be a reduction in spaciousness when seen from Plumtree Drive. In private views, and from the parking court to the south, the extension would be seen in the context of the large car port to the east. 11. Thus, the scale, position and form would not appear excessive for the house or for the wider area. There would not be any harm to the character and appearance of the area, and so no conflict with Policy PL1 or the SPD, insofar as they require the design of development to be informed by its local context. Conclusions 12. I have found that the general design, scale and position of the proposed extension would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. However, that scale and position would have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. This matter is sufficient to warrant the withholding of planning permission, and the appeal is dismissed accordingly. C J Leigh INSPECTOR