Appeal 3285539

The appeal is allowed and planning permission granted for erection of a two storey side extension, single storey rear extension with roof windows and a loft conversion incorporating a rear dormer with 3 rooflights at the front at [site address] , Wanstead, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2616/21, dated 15 June 2021, subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location; C18/45/R-01; C18/45/R-02; C18/45/R-03; C18/45/R-04; C18/45/R-05; C18/45/R-06; C18/45/R-07; C18/45/R-08 and C18/45/R-09.

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.

It is considered that the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene.

The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached dwelling located within a primarily residential area which forms part of the [address] Conservation Area. There is a statutory duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. This duty is echoed in Policy LP33 of the Redbridge Local Plan (LP).

The heritage significance of the Conservation Area is associated with the late Victorian and Edwardian housing development overlaid on an 18th century designed landscape. There are examples of Arts and Crafts and [name] residential buildings. The dwellings are generally set back from the footways to the rear of front gardens that are landscaped and used for parking which gives the streetscene a spacious appearance. There are generally gaps of varying widths between buildings or pairs of semi-detached dwellings which provide views towards the rear gardens from the roads. However, there are examples where gaps do not exist, including along [address].

Planning permission has previously been granted for a 2-storey side extension, single storey rear extension and a loft conversion (Ref 1694/18). This permission was not implemented and the appeal scheme is essentially the same proposed development. The Council has identified a change in circumstance which is associated with the publication of the Housing Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) since the granting of the previous permission. The SPD refers to a need to protect the specific characteristics of Conservation Areas which may require a much more sympathetic and modest approach to development.

However, the SPD is only guidance and neither the statutory duty nor the development plan policy context has altered since the approval of the previous scheme, including [name] LP26 and LP30. Amongst other matters these policies seek high quality development which is well integrated in terms of design to reinforce positive and distinctive local character and for residential extensions to complement the character of the building to maintain its appearance and that of the streetscene.

The Council has not objected to the proposed rear extension and dormer and there are no reasons to depart from this assessment.

The Council has raised concerns about the size and position of the rooflights within the front roofslope. The SPD refers to rooflights within front roofslopes reflecting the position of the windows at the first-floor level. The appeal scheme would not reflect this guidance. However, the 3 rooflights proposed would be of modest size and well separated thereby sitting comfortably within the existing and proposed roofslopes. Accordingly, the proposed rooflights would neither amount to an unacceptable cluttering of the roof nor would they visually dominate the roofslopes. Unacceptable harm would not be caused by the rooflights to the character and appearance of either the property or the residential streetscene along the road.

As acknowledged by the Council, the proposed 2-storey side extension would accord with the SPD’s guidance concerning a gap being retained to the side boundary, the first floor being set back from the host property’s front elevation and the ridge height being lower than the current roof’s ridge. This compliance with the SPD’s guidance would not result in the proposed side extension being a visually intrusive form of development within the streetscene nor would it cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property.

At first floor level the appeal scheme would result in a narrowing of the gap between the enlarged property and [address] and this would have been the case with the previous scheme. Although the gap would be narrowed, there would still remain a view from the road towards the rear gardens and there are views though other gaps of a similar size within the surrounding area. The narrowing of the gap would not materially detract from the open and spacious character and appearance of the streetscene. The use of external materials which match those of the host property would assist with the assimilation of the appeal scheme into the streetscene.

For the reasons given, the appeal scheme would have a neutral effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and it would not harm its heritage significance. Accordingly, the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the streetscene and, as such, it would not conflict with [name] LP26, LP30 and LP33 and the SPD.

The Council has suggested several conditions in the event this appeal succeeds which have been assessed against the tests in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. Conditions are necessary to ensure that the proposed development is erected in accordance with the approved drawings and, for the reasons given, any external materials match those of the host property. For the reasons given, it is concluded that this appeal should be allowed.