Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 November 2024 by A Hunter LLB (Hons) PG Dip MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 November 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/U5930/W/24/3344751 Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, Leyton, Waltham Forest E10 5LD • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order (GPDO) 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Mr Anthony Demetri against the decision of Waltham Forest London Borough Council. • The application Ref is 240240. • The development proposed is the enlargement of the existing dwellinghouse by way of constructing an additional storey above the principal part of the single storey detached dwellinghouse and minor internal alterations are proposed to the ground floor, to allow the inclusion of a staircase. Decision 1.

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for the enlargement of the existing dwellinghouse by way of constructing an additional storey above the principal part of the single storey detached dwellinghouse and minor internal alterations are proposed to the ground floor, to allow the inclusion of a staircase at Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, Leyton, Waltham Forest E10 5LD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 240240, made on the 30 January 2024, and the details submitted with it, namely drawing no’s 169-300 (site location plan); 169-301 (site plans); 169-303 (proposed plans and elevations). Preliminary Matters 2. Under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the GPDO, planning permission is granted for the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of the construction of an additional storey (as in this case) subject to limitations and conditions. 3. Paragraph AA.1 of the Class AA, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO sets out limitations in order for the permitted development right to apply.

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Paragraph AA.2.(3)(a) requires that before beginning the development, the developer must apply to the Council for prior approval in relation to certain matters. In this case the Council considered that the proposal met the limitations and restrictions set out within paragraph AA.1, and I see no reason to disagree. Its reasons for refusal relate to paragraph AA.2.(3)(a)(ii), regarding the prior approval matter of the external appearance of the dwellinghouse (reason no.1), and paragraph AA.2.(3)(a)(i) relating to amenity impacts (reason no.2). https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Paragraph AA.2.(3)(a) requires that before beginning the development, the developer must apply to the Council for prior approval in relation to certain matters. In this case the Council considered that the proposal met the limitations and restrictions set out within paragraph AA.1, and I see no reason to disagree. Its reasons for refusal relate to paragraph AA.2.(3)(a)(ii), regarding the prior approval matter of the external appearance of the dwellinghouse (reason no.1), and paragraph AA.2.(3)(a)(i) relating to amenity impacts (reason no.2). https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U5930/W/24/3344751 Based on the evidence before me, I am also satisfied that the proposal would not result in adverse impacts in respect of the other prior approval matters. In addition, the Council’s reason for refusal no.3 refers to the absence of a construction logistics plan. I have confined my reasoning to these disputed matters. 4. The GPDO requires that when determining an application under Class AA, regard should be had to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as far as relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval. It was also held in CAB Housing Ltd v SSLUHC & Broxbourne BC (2023) that external appearance is not limited to the effect on the dwellinghouse and can include the effect on adjoining and nearby properties. The appeal proposal will be determined on this basis. 5. Prior approval applications must not be determined, expressly or otherwise, on the basis of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 or as though the development plan must be applied. As such, I have only had regard to the policies of the development plan referred to by the main parties, insofar as they are material considerations to the relevant main issues. Main Issues 6.

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Accordingly, the main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the external appearance of the dwellinghouse and the area; • the amenity of any adjoining premises from overlooking, privacy and the loss of light, and; • whether a construction logistics plan can be reasonably required. Reasons External appearance 7. The appeal property is a single storey building located at the end of the rear garden of 35 Oliver Road and accessed via a passageway through that property at basement level. No.35 has 3 storeys above its basement level that are said to be used as 4no. flats. The rear elevations of no.35 and other nearby buildings that face onto that side of Oliver Road are visible from the appeal property, and these are mostly 2 and 3 storeys high (above basement level). The appeal site is also bounded by no.37’s rear garden, an outbuilding, and garages located behind properties on Wilmot Road. Due to its location the appeal site is not visible from Oliver Road, however part of its roof can be seen from nearby Wilmot Road, but this view is across an access road and behind garages. 8. There is a variety of roof forms in the immediate area, including pitched and flat roofs.

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Nearest to the appeal site, the nearby garages and outbuildings have very low-pitched or flat roofs, and no.35 itself has a mansard roof. The neighbouring building, comprising no’s 29,31 and 33, whose rear elevations are visible from the appeal property has a flat roof above its three storeys of accommodation, and there are other flat roof extensions to the rear of nearby properties that are visible from the appeal site. 9. The proposal would add an additional storey of accommodation to the appeal property, which would have the same flat roof design, including parapet walls https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Nearest to the appeal site, the nearby garages and outbuildings have very low-pitched or flat roofs, and no.35 itself has a mansard roof. The neighbouring building, comprising no’s 29,31 and 33, whose rear elevations are visible from the appeal property has a flat roof above its three storeys of accommodation, and there are other flat roof extensions to the rear of nearby properties that are visible from the appeal site. 9. The proposal would add an additional storey of accommodation to the appeal property, which would have the same flat roof design, including parapet walls https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U5930/W/24/3344751 to its sides. Furthermore, its proposed fenestration, and external materials would harmonise with the host property, and respect its design, form, and appearance. 10. Its increased height would make the property more conspicuous in a location behind other properties and near to some single storey buildings. However, given the context of the nearby buildings, including their different forms and arrangements, its appearance would not be overly dominant, particularly given its modest increase in height and narrow width, as such it would not harmfully contrast against other nearby buildings. Even though there would be very few public views of the proposed development, likely to be limited to glimpsed views of its sides, from Wilmot Road and Thornhill Road, it would still be seen from neighbouring properties. Nevertheless, its external appearance would be in keeping with many of the building forms around it, and its external appearance would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. 11.

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Consequently, I find that the external appearance of the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its effect upon the dwellinghouse and the area, and the proposal would accord with the requirements of paragraph AA.2.(3)(a)(ii) of Class AA , Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO. In addition, the proposal would comply with paragraphs 124 and 135 of the Framework, that amongst other things requires development to function well and add to the overall quality of the area, be visually attractive, be sympathetic to the local character and for upward extensions to respect the prevailing height and form of neighbouring properties. 12. Although not determinative the proposal would also comply with Policy 53 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan, Part 1, Shaping the Borough 2020 – 2035 (WFLP), that amongst other things, seeks to deliver high quality development that reinforces local character and distinctiveness. 13. The Council referred to the proposal conflicting with WFLP Policies 55 and 57.

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Policy 55 is concerned with building heights, it sets out the number of storeys of accommodation that can be acceptable in certain types of locations, however there was insufficient information provided for me to fully assess the proposal against this policy in this location. Policy 57 is concerned with residential amenity impacts. As such, I was not able to conclude against these policies on this main issue. Amenity impacts 14. The proposed additional storey is said to increase the building to some 6 metres in height, an increase of some 2.68 metres. It is proposed to have first floor windows on its front elevation only, which would face towards no. 35. 15. There is a large area of garden space between the rear elevation of no.35 and the appeal property, whose access is directly through no.35’s garden area. I saw on my site inspection that the intervening garden is already overlooked by the windows on the rear of no.35, and its adjoining properties, and also from the ground floor windows on the appeal property. The introduction of the proposed first floor windows will not materially change the degree of overlooking of the garden belonging to no.35, or indeed the gardens of neighbouring properties.

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision The separation distances between the appeal proposal and the rear elevations of the existing properties that face onto https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision The separation distances between the appeal proposal and the rear elevations of the existing properties that face onto https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3 Appeal Decision APP/U5930/W/24/3344751 Oliver Road, would also ensure that there would not be unacceptable privacy effects on their existing windows. 16. In view of the arrangement of the adjoining buildings in relation to the appeal property and given the modest increase in height of the proposal, there would be no unacceptable loss of light to the adjoining premises. Furthermore, there would also be no unacceptable loss of light to the rear garden of the occupiers of the neighbouring property, given the appeal properties location near to the end of their long rear garden. 17. Consequently, I find that the impacts of the proposal on the amenity of the adjoining premises to be acceptable, and the proposal would accord with the requirements of paragraph AA.2.(3)(a)(i) of Class AA, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO. In addition, the proposal would also accord with paragraph 135 of the Framework, insofar as it requires a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. 18.

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Although not determinative, the proposal would also comply with WFLP Policy 57, that amongst other things, seeks to ensure new development respects the amenity of existing and future occupiers, by avoiding harmful impacts from overlooking, the loss of privacy, and from enclosure and outlook. 19. The Council referred to conflict with WFLP Policies 53 and 56. Policy 53 is focussed on delivering high quality development, and Policy 56 is concerned with residential space standards. I did not find either of these policies to be directly relevant to this main issue. Construction Logistics Plan 20. Class AA, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO does not explicitly require the submission of a construction logistics plan with such an application for prior approval. Furthermore, paragraph AA.2(3) does not have a prior approval matter relating to highway and transportation impacts that would relate to the matters intended to be covered by a construction logistics plan, as required by the Council.

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Paragraph AA.3(11) says that the Council can require the submission of assessments on impacts or risks, along with statements setting out how impacts or risks are to be mitigated (having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework), and details of proposed building or other operations, however, such information must be in regard to the prior approval matters only. Consequently, it would be unreasonable to require the submission of a construction logistics plan with this application. 21. The condition imposed by paragraph AA.2(3)(b) relates to a report for the management of the construction of the development, which requires hours of operation and how any adverse impact of noise, dust, vibration and traffic on adjoining owners or occupiers will be mitigated. Whilst this standard condition would partly address some aspects intended to be covered by a construction logistics plan condition, it would not address matters relating to the effects of the proposal on highway safety. 22. Furthermore, paragraph AA.3(15) says the local planning authority are able to impose conditions that are reasonably necessary in regard to the prior approval matters only.

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision As such, it would not be reasonable for conditions to be imposed in this respect either. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision As such, it would not be reasonable for conditions to be imposed in this respect either. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/U5930/W/24/3344751 23. I therefore conclude that a construction logistics plan cannot be reasonably required to be provided as part of this prior approval application, nor would it be reasonable to condition the submission of it as part of any approval. Conditions 24. The GDPO grants planning permission under Class AA subject to conditions including a date for completion; that the materials to be used have to be similar to those used on the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse; that no windows should be installed in the walls or roofs on side elevations of the dwellinghouse; that the roof pitch on the principal elevation matches that of the existing roof pitch on the same elevation; and following the development the dwellinghouse remains in Class C3 of the Schedule to the Use Classes Order. It also requires a report of the management of construction of the development to be submitted before the development begins, including hours of operation and mitigation of the adverse impacts of pollution on neighbours. As these are set out in the GPDO it is not necessary to repeat them on this decision. 25.

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — Appeal Decision The GPDO also allows for prior approval to be granted unconditionally or subject to conditions that reasonably relate to the subject matter of the prior approval. However, in this case the conditions in Class AA, as described above, are sufficient to address the potential impacts of the proposed development. 26. The Council’s suggested conditions relating to cycle storage and refuse facilities, are not considered to be necessary given that the proposal relates to an additional storey of accommodation above an existing dwellinghouse. Furthermore, given the built-up residential context of the appeal site, and the scale of the proposal, a condition regarding external lighting was also not necessary in this case. Conclusion 27. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval should be granted.

Flat A, 35 Oliver Road, LONDON, E10 5LD — Waltham Forest London Borough Council — A Hunter INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5