Appeal 3273301

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single storey side extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/03580/HOU, dated 3 November 2020, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: ksd/20/75/01 - site and location plan, ksd/20/75/05 - proposed ground floor, ksd/20/75/03 - proposed front elevation and roof plan, ksd/20/75/07 - proposed rear and side elevations.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The Council has cited policies 7.4 and 7.8 of the London Plan (2016) in its reason for refusal. These policies have been transposed and renumbered as policies HC1, D3 and D4 within The London Plan (2021) which has now been published. These policies are generally the same as the ones they replaced. I shall take these into account in my decision.

The main issue is whether the proposed extension would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Bush Hill Park Conservation Area (CA).

[address] is a residential tree-lined street. Local dwellings are a combination of detached and semi-detached buildings in a range of traditional styles. The appeal site contains a detached dwelling with interesting architectural features including exposed timber framing, a double span gable frontage and a large ground floor bay window. A prefabricated concrete garage is connected to the dwelling by a fence and makes a moderately negative contribution to the street. Nevertheless, overall, the dwelling is a prominent building that makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is within the Bush Hill Park CA. The statutory requirements1 entail that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. The Bush Hill Park CA [name] (2015) identifies that [address] has dwellings within modest sized plots and that the regimented housing is built close to the road. The significance of the CA seems to derive from the architectural detailing of many historic buildings located within a historic street pattern.

The proposed side extension would include a form and materiality that would replicate features of the main dwelling and largely retain the attractive fireplace feature on its side. This would also maintain a sense of separation to enable the proposed extension to be subservient to the host dwelling. It would replace the existing garage, which has a negative effect on the street, with a more considered and integrated design. The fence and gate would be brought slightly forward of its existing position. As a result, this would partially obscure the lean-to structure that contains the fireplace. However, the gap between the proposal and the host dwelling would retain views of most of the lean-to from the street. Consequently, the proposal would respect the design, form and proportions of the host dwelling.

The front elevation of the proposal would be slightly set back from the front building line of the host dwelling. This alignment would maintain the prominence of the main building. The roof of the proposed extension would include side facing and front facing elements. This configuration would replicate the roof design of the main house. The small connecting flat roof, whilst a moderately discordant element, would be recessed from the frontage and therefore discrete. Also, its use would enable the remaining roof elements to be relatively narrow and low in profile in support of the overall design of the extension. This would enable the proposal to be subservient to the main dwelling and to not materially harm the significance of the conservation area.

Consequently, the proposed extension would preserve the character and appearance of the Bush Hill Park CA. Accordingly, the proposal would satisfy policies CP30 and CP31 of the [name] 2010-2025 (2010)(CS), policies DMD14, DMD37 and DMD44 of the Development Management Document (2014), policies HC1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) and the Bush Hill Park CA Character Appraisal (2015). These policies, among other matters, seek development to be high quality, to reinforce locally distinctive character and to be sympathetic to the significance of heritage assets. 1 Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

I have applied the standard conditions advised within the National Planning Practice Guidance. I have also imposed a condition for materials to match the existing building in the interests of the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

There are no material considerations that indicate the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.