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: 6014032 684 Forest Road, Walthamstow, Waltham Forest, E17 3ED • 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 Mohammed Ayyub against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Waltham Forest. • The application Ref is 260763. • The development proposed is a single storey wraparound rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The description of the development proposed is taken from the Council’s decision notice and the appellant’s statement. The description of development provided on the application form was “4.3m side/rear extension at 2.4m height of eaves and 3.0m total height of extension with 4x Velux rooflights.” 3. The Council’s reason for refusal refers to the Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2010 SPD), which has since been superseded by the Residential Alterations and Retrofit Supplementary Planning Document (2026 SPD). 4. The Council and the appellant both refer to pre-application consultation. Whilst the appellant amended his proposals further to pre-application advice, the Council considered that the proposal was insufficiently revised to overcome its concerns and the planning application was refused. Main Issue 5. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbours, with regard to outlook and daylight. Reasons 6. The appeal property is a two storey mid-terrace dwelling with a long garden to the rear. It is located opposite a large college in a mixed-use area, along Forest Road, a busy highway. 7. The appeal dwelling is set back from the road behind a wide pavement, a low boundary wall and a front garden. To the rear, the terrace within which the appeal dwelling is situated is characterised by the presence of two storey outriggers and Appeal Decision 6014032 2 long gardens. The gardens afford the rear of the appeal dwelling a sense of greenery, openness and tranquillity. During my site visit, I observed that gardens rise up relatively steeply to the rear due to the topography of the area. 8. The Council’s adopted guidance, previously set out in the 2010 SPD and now referred to in the 2026 SPD, identifies that extensions projecting beyond 3m in depth can result in overbearing impacts and loss of outlook to neighbouring occupiers, particularly where excessive height and continuous built form are introduced close to shared boundaries; and that infilling the rear “L-shape” of a property can create a harmful tunnel-like effect and become overly dominant to neighbouring occupiers. 9. The proposed development would comprise a single storey wraparound rear extension. This would project considerably beyond the existing two storey rear outrigger and would reach a substantial height adjacent to the shared boundary with Number 686 Forest Road. 10. I find that the considerable height and projection of the proposal would combine with its immediate proximity to the rear of No 686 such that it would appear to loom above the rear of this neighbouring dwelling to an overbearing degree. It would draw the eye and would appear as an overly dominant feature when seen from the rear of No 686. 11. The proposed development would extend across the full width of the appeal property, such that the wraparound extension would adjoin the shared boundary with Number 682 Forest Road. The appeal dwelling sits higher than No 682 to the rear and this would have the effect of increasing the height of the proposal’s flank wall as experienced from No 682 and would serve to reduce any mitigating effect arising from the stepped-down design of the proposal along this shared boundary. 12. Taking everything into account, I find that the combination of height, projection and immediate proximity of the proposed development would create an oppressive tunnel-like effect and an undue sense of enclosure when seen from the ground floor of No 682. 13. The broadly southerly orientation of the rear gardens along this side of Forest Road and the single storey nature of the extension would mean that the additional overshadowing of neighbouring properties would not in itself be so harmful as to warrant dismissal of this appeal. However, this does not address the harm I have identified above in respect of outlook and sense of enclosure, which arises principally from the depth, height and continuous form of the extension along both shared boundaries, rather than from its effect on daylight or sunlight. 14. Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 682 and 686 Forest Road, with regard to outlook. This would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy 57 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan LP1 (2024)1; and to the Council’s Residential Alterations and Retrofit Supplementary Planning Document (2026), which together amongst other things, seek to protect residential amenity. 1 Waltham Forest Local Plan LP1 (2024). Appeal Decision 6014032 3 Other Matters 15. In support of his case, the appellant draws attention to the single storey rear extension at No 688 Forest Road as evidence that similar development can be introduced without harm to neighbouring amenity. However, the appellant notes that the planning history of this property has not been established and that No 688 occupies an end-of-terrace location. There is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that the circumstances relating to this other development are so similar to those of the appeal before me as to provide for direct comparison. In any case, I have found that the proposed development would result in significant harm and this is not something that is outweighed by the presence of another development elsewhere. 16. I have had regard to the evidence submitted concerning the mobility difficulties experienced by a member of the appellant’s household and the resulting need for improved ground floor living and bathing accommodation. This is a material consideration to which I am sympathetic. However, it is not apparent from the evidence before me that the proposed development is the only means by which necessary additional accommodation could be provided. I find that the harm identified above is so significant as not to be outweighed by this benefit and hence the conclusion below. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed. N McGurk INSPECTOR