71 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD

71 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 February 2022 by S D Castle BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 March 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/U5930/W/21/3276027 71 Oliver Road, London E10 5LD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (the GPDO). • The appeal is made by Eastbrook Group Ltd against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Waltham Forest. • The application Ref 210426, dated 11 February 2021, was refused by notice dated 01 April 2021. • The development proposed is construction of a roof extension to a detached block of flats to create a new third floor providing 2 x 2 bed self-contained flats (Class C3). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2.

71 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Paragraph B (15) to Part 20 of the GPDO requires the local planning authority to take into account any representations made to them as a result of consultation, and to have regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’), so far as relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval, as if the application were a planning application. I have taken account of representations received and the Framework. 3. The prior approval provisions do not require regard to be had to the development plan. I have therefore only had regard to the policies of the development plan in so far as they relate to the relevant subject matters, and only as evidence to support (rather than being the basis of) the planning judgment made. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: • whether the development relates to a detached block of flats as defined under Class A, Part 20, Schedule 2 of the GPDO. • whether prior approval should be granted having regard to the effect of the proposal on the external appearance of the building. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

71 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U5930/W/21/3276027 Reasons Definition of detached 5. Paragraph A to Part 20, Class A of the GPDO sets out as permitted development, “Development consisting of works for the construction of up to two additional storeys of new dwellinghouses immediately above the existing topmost residential storey on a building which is a purpose-built, detached block of flats” together with related works. 6. There is no dispute between the parties that the development consists of an additional storey of new dwellinghouses immediately above the existing topmost residential storey on a building which is a purpose-built block of flats. The disagreement between the parties relates to whether 71 Oliver Road meets the definition of “Detached”, meaning that “the building does not share a party wall with a neighbouring building”, as defined within Paragraph C.(1) of Part 20. 7. There is no definition of “party wall” within the GPDO. The appellant refers, therefore, to the definition within the Party Wall etc.

71 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Act 1996 where it states, ‘“party wall” means— (a) a wall which forms part of a building and stands on lands of different owners to a greater extent than the projection of any artificially formed support on which the wall rests; and (b) so much of a wall not being a wall referred to in paragraph (a) above as separates buildings belonging to different owners;’ 8. The appellant has submitted the opinion of a Chartered Surveyor1 who concludes that, “the two buildings are independent of each other, having a flank wall to each building, Neither of these walls would constitute a party wall as defined in The Party Wall etc. Act, 1996.” 9. No substantive evidence to counter this expert opinion is before me. As such, whilst there is no gap between no 71 and the adjoining 2-storey dwelling located to the north (no 69), I find that these dwellings do not share a party wall. The proposal is, therefore, eligible to be determined under Class A of Part 20. 10. In light of my finding that the development relates to a detached block of flats, there is no further dispute between the main parties that the development otherwise complies with the list of preclusions set out by Paragraph A.1, Class A of Part 20. I see no reason to disagree.

71 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision External appearance 11. The condition under paragraph A.2.1(e) of Part 20, Class A of the GPDO, requires that the developer must apply to the local planning authority for prior approval of the authority as to the external appearance of the building. 12. The existing building has flats over 3-storeys and is of a simple flat roof form. The additional storey would reflect the existing character of the building through matching the existing materials and pattern of fenestration, whilst maintaining its simple flat roof form. In this regard, the design of the proposed 1 Andrew P Parkes MRICS – Lapton Consultants Ltd https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

71 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision External appearance 11. The condition under paragraph A.2.1(e) of Part 20, Class A of the GPDO, requires that the developer must apply to the local planning authority for prior approval of the authority as to the external appearance of the building. 12. The existing building has flats over 3-storeys and is of a simple flat roof form. The additional storey would reflect the existing character of the building through matching the existing materials and pattern of fenestration, whilst maintaining its simple flat roof form. In this regard, the design of the proposed 1 Andrew P Parkes MRICS – Lapton Consultants Ltd https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

71 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U5930/W/21/3276027 additional storey is appropriate in that it would not disrupt the established architectural design of the building. 13. I have had regard to the appellant’s assertion that A.2.1(e) limits prior approval to the effect of the proposal on the external appearance of the building itself rather than on the wider area. Indeed, I note that such an approach is taken in the appeal decision2 drawn to my attention by the appellant. Whilst previous appeal decisions are material considerations, they do not constitute precedent. It is necessary, for individual decision-makers to make their own planning judgments when interpreting and applying the prior approval controls. 14. It is my interpretation that ‘external appearance’ goes beyond an assessment of the building in isolation. In a case such as this, where the building is part of an established street scene, an assessment of ‘external appearance’ should take into consideration the building’s intrinsic design and the effect of the building’s relationship with adjoining or nearby properties. The street context is an important aspect of the assessment of the building’s external appearance. 15.

71 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision The eastern side of Oliver Road adjacent to no 71 is characterised by 2-storey dwellings with projecting decorative bay windows, decorative recessed porches and tiled pitched roofs with chimneys. Whilst no 71 is of a similar height to the adjoining dwellings, given its flat roof and lack of articulation, the building appears incongruously oppressive and out of kilter with the prevailing character of the street scene. 16. The proposal would result in no 71 being markedly taller than the typical 2-storey dwellings adjacent to the site on the eastern side of Oliver Road. This would harmfully exacerbate the oppressive and discordant external appearance of no 71 within the street scene. Whilst there are similar height buildings to the proposal in the wider street scene, they predominantly have pitched roofs and design features to ensure their massing is appropriately articulated. 17. It is acknowledged that the thrust of the relevant permitted development rights is for upwards development on existing residential buildings, providing additional housing.

71 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision The proposal is, however, contrary to Framework paragraph 120(e) which allows for upward extensions where the development would be well designed and consistent with the prevailing height and form of neighbouring properties and the overall street scene. It would also conflict with Policy CS15 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan - Core Strategy (2012) and Policy DM29 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan – Development Management Policies (2013) which, taken together, require, amongst other things, development to ensure the highest quality architecture that responds positively to local context and character. 18. For the reasons set out above, the development would result in an external appearance of the building harmful to the character and appearance of the area and unacceptable for the purposes of Class A, Part 20 of the GPDO. Other Matters 19. Local residents have objected to the proposal on other issues, not all of which fall for consideration as prior approval matters under Paragraph A.2. The impact on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings is a relevant 2 Appeal Ref: APP/T1410/W/20/3263486 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

71 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U5930/W/21/3276027 consideration under Paragraph A.2.(g). The proposal is accompanied by a Daylight, Sunlight and Overshadowing Assessment which finds that the proposed scheme will not cause a noticeable change in light levels to existing neighbouring occupants. There is no substantive evidence before me that would lead me to conclude differently on this matter. No side facing windows are proposed and there would, therefore, be no material adverse effect on living conditions for neighbouring occupiers with regards to overlooking and loss of privacy. A condition requiring approval of a detailed Construction Logistics Plan could address concerns about noise and disturbance arising from building processes. 20. The Council’s submissions advise that an obligation is necessary to restrict occupiers of the proposed development from obtaining parking permits within the surrounding area’s Controlled Parking Zone. The appellant has submitted a draft s106 agreement and is not challenging the Council’s request for an obligation.

71 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision As I am dismissing the appeal on a main issue, I have not considered this matter further and it has not been necessary to go back to the parties to ensure that the relevant legal agreement is completed as appropriate. Conclusion 21. For the reasons above, the appeal is dismissed.

71 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — S D Castle INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4