Appeal 3281060

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the conversion of the garage into a habitable room; alterations to the roof over the existing side extension; four front rooflights; alterations to fenestrations at [site address] , Cranbrook, Ilford in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 1334/21, dated 26 March 2021 and subject to the following conditions:

The development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this decision;

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 development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: OS based Block Site Plan; [name] and Elevations; [name] and Elevations;

During construction of the development hereby permitted, the protected Horse Chestnut Tree (Ref. TPO 4/09) shall be protected in accordance with the requirements of BS 5837 (2012) ‘Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction’. The protection measures shall be implemented prior to any below-ground works and shall be retained for the entire period of the duration of work.

The main issue is the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the [address] street scene.

The Council has criticised the appeal scheme for its lack of subordination to the main front elevation and I acknowledge that because the appeal scheme maintains the existing ridgeline this is a reasonable objection. However, the existing accommodation above the integral garage with its three different areas of roof (two pitched and one flat) has a somewhat awkward appearance.

This is replicated at No. 4 but despite the resulting symmetry of the pair and the fact that this roof design is part of the dwellings’ established character, I do not consider it has the aesthetic merit to be preserved at all costs. And as the existing front wall above the garage is not set back from the main front elevation of the dwelling, it is not practical to achieve it in a proposed extension roof extension.

Notwithstanding the above and the fact that the officer’s report concedes that ‘the proposals are minor in scope’, I take the view that a roof extension of this scale and design proposed including the larger end gable would be unlikely to be acceptable if the dwelling had been in the middle of a row of houses. The addition would appear too large in relation to the dwelling and would be likely to create a terracing effect with its nearest neighbour.

The difference in this case is that the appeal dwelling is the last in the row (or the first on this side of the road in the approach from the junction with [address]). In moving from that junction the larger gable and clean lines of the simpler design of the roof extension would be read with the garden of No. [address] as clearly demarcating the change in the character of the townscape from the main through road to the minor side road. I also consider that the projecting front gable, the double bay windows and the dual pitched front porch are strong enough features to draw the eye and offset any perception of the extended area as being unduly large.

On balance, I conclude that the appeal proposal is acceptable and would adversely affect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the street scene. Accordingly, it would not be in harmful conflict with [name] 26 & LP 30 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015-2030 adopted in 2018 and Section 12: ‘[name] of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021.

I shall therefore allow the appeal. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is needed for the avoidance of doubt, whilst a matching external materials condition will ensure a harmonious form of development and maintain visual amenity. I shall also impose a condition to safeguard the TPO tree in the garden of No. 2.