Appeal 3287047

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the proposed porch at [site address] , Rainham, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0473.21, dated 12 March 2021 and the plans submitted with it, 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: 38-01R1, 38-02R1, 38-03R2, except in respect of the 1:500 block plan shown on plan 38-01R1.

The materials used in the external surfaces of the porch hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The council have indicated that following the amendment of the proposed porch that there is now a discrepancy between the 1:500 site plan shown on drawing number 38-01R1 and the detail of the porch shown on drawing 38-03R2, in relation to the position of the proposed porch. I am satisfied that the discrepancy is minor, and that the detailed plans and elevations shown on drawing 38-03R2 are sufficiently accurate to assess the proposal without being prejudicial to interested parties.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area.

[address] comprises a mixed streetscene where dwellings exhibit a range of front elevational treatments including porches and canopies of differing scales and designs. Additionally, properties are either semi-detached or short terraces, with no strong established development frontage. Overall, the character of the area is one of variety. The host property itself currently features an existing pitched roof front porch.

Although the proposed porch would be larger than that it would replace, it would not appear as unduly large in terms of height, bulk or mass, when considered in the context of the existing character of the area, a component of which is the variety of front elevational treatments that is evident, including those of a similar size and design to the appeal scheme.

Furthermore, the porch would be appropriately sited towards to the centre of the front elevation of the property, reflecting existing properties in the area. [address] being characterised by small groups of linked properties without a strong rhythm being evident, the proposed development would not appear as unduly prominent or harmful to this character, as its scale would be commensurate with others in the vicinity.

The location of the entrance door on the side elevation would be not wholly reflective of the general approach to front elevational treatments in the immediate surrounding area, but neither would it be an isolated outlier in terms of design, with other examples being evident. The proposed porch would also include a window addressing the street, so would not present a blank façade. Consequently, this design approach would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area in this instance.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect upon the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, I find no conflict with London Borough of [name] and Development Control Policies DPD1 Policy DC61 which seeks to ensure that new development maintains or improves the character of the local area through appropriate scale and design, and response to local distinctiveness.

In addition to the standard implementation condition, it is necessary in the interests of precision to define the plans with which the scheme should accord. A condition concerning external materials is required in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed subject to conditions.