Appeal Decision

Site visit made on 17 March 2026

by N Bowden BA(Hons) Dip TP MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State

Decision date: 25 March 2026

Appeal Ref: 6002767 1 Winterbourne Road, Lewisham, London SE6 4UQ

• 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 [APPELLANT] against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Lewisham.

• The application Ref is DC/23/134247.

• The development proposed is a raised decking to the rear of the property and addition of privacy screening and balustrade.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Preliminary Matters

2. The description of development given on the application form referred to “retention and regularisation” of the proposal. Whilst I recognise that the raised decking element of the proposal is retrospective, I have removed this reference from the banner heading above as these matters are not acts of development.

Main Issue

3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupants of the neighbouring property at 5 Winterbourne Road having particular regard to the loss of daylight, sunlight and outlook.

Reasons

4. The appeal site comprises a detached house which has been recently altered and extended. These works included the formation of a raised patio/deck area to the rear of an approved single storey rear extension. The patio/deck did not have the benefit of planning permission.

5. Due to the change in levels on and around the site, the patio/deck is elevated above natural ground level and its raised position allows for substantial overlooking to neighbouring properties. Due to the height of the patio/deck this overlooking is significant, particularly towards the neighbouring property at number 5 Winterbourne Road. In order to mitigate this, screen fences are proposed to both sides of the raised patio/deck. This, however, results in a large amount of built form in proximity to this neighbouring property.

6. The Council estimates the depth of the fencing and extension to project around 6.65 metres from the back wall of this neighbour and I have no reason to disagree with this assessment. The height of the fencing would reach around 2.74 metres

and this is set beyond the already quite large, and notably taller, single storey rear extension. The cumulative effect of the extension and fencing would be to introduce a significant mass of walling and fencing that would be visible from the rear rooms and garden to number 5. Whilst this is separated by an approximately 1 metre gap to this neighbour’s property, this would still have an overbearing appearance and result in a loss of outlook to the detriment of the living conditions of the occupants.

7. The extension and fencing, in cumulation exceed the recommendations set out in the Lewisham Alterations and Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (2019) and further conflict with policy QD9 of the Lewisham Local Plan (2025). This is insofar as the proposal would adversely impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties including back gardens.

8. The Council further expressed concern regarding a loss of sunlight and daylight due to the extension and fencing. Whilst I accept this may be the case for limited times of the day, both properties are broadly south facing, and this means that there would be reasonable light and solar access for most of the day. This is such that I am unable to conclude that any loss of daylight or sunlight would cause any demonstrable harm to the living conditions of the occupants of number 5. This is because there would be ample access to daylight and sunlight for the majority of the day.

Conclusion

9. The proposal would result in an extension with rear fencing to the rear that would appear intrusive and overbearing when viewed from the neighbouring property. The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

N Bowden

INSPECTOR