Single storey wraparound rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 September 2026 by N McGurk BSc (Hons) MCD MBA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011821 29 Maynard Road, Walthamstow, London, E17 9JE • 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 Bostan Mohammad against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Waltham Forest. • The application Ref is 260808. • The development proposed is a single storey wraparound rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. A previous proposal for development at the appeal site, which also included a front bay window, was recently dismissed at appeal1. In determining that appeal, the previous Inspector found that the bay window would harm local character but was satisfied that the wraparound single storey rear extension proposed would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 31 Maynard Road. 3. The Council states that, other than no longer including a bay window, the proposed development the subject of this appeal “is materially the same” as that previously considered. I note that the previous appeal was dismissed in full and that no planning permission was granted for the rear extension. Nevertheless, the previous Inspector’s findings in respect of the wraparound single storey rear extension are an important material consideration to which I attach significant weight. Main Issue 4. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 31 Maynard Road, with regard to outlook. Reasons 5. The appeal property is a two storey mid-terrace dwelling located in a residential area. It is set back from the road behind a short front garden area and has a longer garden to the rear. 1 Reference: APP/U5930/D/25/3372488. Appeal Decision 6011821 2 6. To the rear, the appeal dwelling has a two storey outrigger and an existing single storey extension, which is set away from the boundary with the neighbouring dwelling, Number 31 Maynard Road. 7. During my site visit, I observed that many dwellings within the terrace appear to have been extended to the rear and I noted the presence of wraparound rear extensions. Some of these extend the full width of properties. 8. The proposal would project further to the rear than the existing extension and would also extend to the shared boundary with No 31. Although the roof would step down towards the shared boundary, the proposal would introduce a tall flank/parapet wall immediately alongside No 31. Due to the overall length of the proposed development, this would project for a considerable distance to the rear. 9. The effect of development on neighbouring living conditions is a matter of planning judgement. In this case, the previous Inspector and the Council reached different conclusions in respect of the effect of the rear extension on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 31. It is the Council’s consideration that the previous Inspector did not expressly assess the effect of the proposed high parapet/flank wall extending to the shared rear boundary with No 31. In this regard, it is my conclusion that, when experienced from No 31, the perceived height of the proposal would derive from its full height, rather than simply from its eaves height. 10. Further, I find that the immediate proximity of the proposal to the shared boundary with No 31, combined with its height and rearwards projection, would result in it appearing unduly dominant and visually intrusive when seen from the rear of that neighbouring dwelling. In particular, the outlook from the rear-facing ground floor window would be unduly dominated by the immediacy and scale of the proposal, which would appear to loom above the shared boundary to an overbearing extent. 11. In addition to the above, the proposed development’s height and projection would combine with the relative narrowness of the space between No 31’s rearwards projection and this shared rear boundary, to result in the creation of a pronounced “tunnel” effect. This would serve to replace the outlook presently experienced from No 31 to its rear garden with a materially greater sense of enclosure. 12. Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 31 Maynard Road with regard to outlook, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy 53 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan Part 1 (2024); and to the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2010), which amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity. Other Matters 13. In reaching my decision, I have had careful regard to the previous Inspector’s appeal decision, including the Inspector’s findings that the low eaves and roof form would minimise bulk, that outlook would generally remain through the rear garden of No 31 and that any effects on daylight and sunlight would be minimal. 14. I acknowledge that proposal the subject of this appeal does not include the front bay window which led to the dismissal of the previous appeal on character and appearance grounds. However, having regard to all of the information before me, Appeal Decision 6011821 3 including my observations on site, I have reached a different planning judgement to the previous Inspector and hence my conclusion below. Conclusion 15. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. N McGurk INSPECTOR