Appeal 3285720

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a proposed ground and first floor side extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/01119/HSE, dated 17 June 2021, subject to the following conditions:

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: D03 Proposed Ground Floor Plan, D04 Proposed First Floor Plan, D06 Proposed Roof Plan, D09 [name], D10 [name], D11 Proposed Section AA, D12 Block Plan and D13 Site Location.

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 are currently in the process of producing a new Local Plan, which is yet to be independently examined. At this stage, I afford it limited weight in my decision making and it does not alter my findings.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area.

[site address] forms one half of a semi-detached pair with [address]. It sits within a triangular corner plot which shares its front boundary with [address] and its side boundary with [address]. No 1 is gable fronted and the roof to the side of the existing gable features a dormer window. An existing single storey extension and outbuilding can be found to the rear of No 1 and the private garden area is located to the side and front of the appeal dwelling.

[address] is a cul-de-sac which comprises similar aged semi-detached properties which are predominantly finished in render and have tiled roofs. Some dwellings feature gable fronts and small front dormer windows, and others have simpler hipped roofs. The wider street scene of [address] features a mix of terraced and semi-detached dwellings with a more varied character and appearance than [address].

The development proposed would provide a two-storey side extension to No 1. The drawings are annotated to show this extension as 3 metres in width and the extension would span the depth of the dwelling at ground floor level. At first floor, the drawings are annotated to show the extension would be set back 1 metre behind the front wall. The proposed ridge line would also be lower than the host dwelling’s ridge line.

When compared to the main dwelling, the 3m width of the proposed extension would be less than half the width of the existing dwelling. The setback of 1 metre from the front wall at first floor height and the lowered ridge line would accord with paragraph 5.4.3(b) for semi-detached dwellings of the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2012 (the SPD). Given this broad compliance with this section of the SPD and proportionate width of the proposed development, I find it to be acceptable and subservient in relation to the host dwelling and in balance with its adjacent neighbour at No 2.

The existing single storey rear extension and rear outbuilding have flat roofs and their siting and screening results in a very limited impact when viewed from public vantage points on [address] and [address]. From these same vantage points, the addition of the two-storey side extension would not appear cumulatively harmful given the very limited visual impact of the existing single storey structures and the generous separation of the proposal from plot boundaries. In addition, a considerable, enclosed side and front garden would remain. The Council has not provided me with any policy standards in respect to garden sizes.

No 1’s corner location set back from the street scene reduces its visual impact. The dwelling would be larger than the other dwellings in [address] and two storey extensions are not a feature within the locality. However, I have found the extension to be appropriate with respect to its design and appearance relative to the host dwelling, its adjacent neighbour, and the plot in which it sits. [name] have found no harm, the absence of development elsewhere is not a reason to withhold planning permission. I have had regard to the planning history of the appeal site in coming to my decision. However, I have considered this appeal on its own merits.

The Council has referred to Policy SP4 of its Draft Local Plan as part of its decision notice. This policy focuses on delivering social and cultural infrastructure facilities. It is not clear how social and cultural infrastructure applies to this development proposal and the Council has not expanded on how this policy applies and consequently I attach limited weight to Policy SP4.

Accordingly, the proposed development would therefore be sympathetic to the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. I find no conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy CP3 of the Planning for the Future of Barking and [name] 2010, Policies BP8 and BP11 of the LDF Borough Wide Development Plan [name] 2011, Policy D4 of the London Plan 2021, Policies DMD1 and DMD6 of the Draft Local Plan, the SPD and paragraphs 130 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development is sympathetic to the character and appearance of the area.

I have attached conditions on the time limit for development and the approved plans in the interests of certainty. The materials condition is also necessary to ensure that the development is in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling.

For the above reasons, having regard to the development plan as a whole, the approach in the National Planning Policy Framework and all other relevant material considerations, the appeal is allowed subject to the conditions above.