Appeal 3287336

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of an existing conservatory and replacement with a two storey extension at [site address] , London, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref /21, dated 2021, 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: 01-100-A; 01-200-A; 20-P001; P002; P010 & P020-A.

No development shall take place above slab level until further details / samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details / samples.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area (CA) and its effect on that of the dwelling.

In considering proposals for planning permission, the duty imposed by section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas. Paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) (the Framework) states that when considering the impact of new development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to its conservation.

The development plan includes policies LP26, LP30 and LP33 in the Redbridge Local Plan (2018) (LP) which together seek to ensure, amongst other things, that developments are of a high quality design and of a scale that enhances the character of the dwelling and respects the surrounding area and preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Conservation Areas.

The appeal site is located in [address] in the heart of the [site address] Conservation Area. The Council’s CA Character Appraisal notes that the intimate scale of [address] and the enclosure of surrounding buildings gives the area a historic, almost medieval and village-like feel. At my visit I noted an attractive narrow, winding street within an area of dwellings of varying ages, sizes, styles and materials, dominated somewhat by a large block of modern flats just outside the CA. Unlike most of the dwellings, no 20 is set back from the road behind trees and planting, occupying a secluded position. It is adjoined to no 22 which has a different frontage around the corner onto [address] and has been significantly extended in the past, the pair forming an L-shape.

No 20 is a two storey cottage built in the 1830’s of brick with a tiled hipped roof and has been extended to the side with a hipped roof two-storey side/rear extension clad in white horizontal weatherboarding, a flat roofed single storey side extension in white render and a white upvc front conservatory. The variety of sizes, roof forms and materials of these different elements has resulted in an incongruous mix of development which contributes little to the character and appearance of the dwelling or the CA.

The proposed two storey extension would be sited in place of the existing conservatory, to the front of the existing two storey extension, obscuring all but the top of its roof when viewed from the front, and to the front of part of the single storey extension which would have a new window to match those of the new extension. Although the Council has referred to the proposed roof as pitched, the plans show that it would be hipped, with a pitch to match that of the main roof. The extension has been designed as a contemporary addition, with the hipped roof set in behind the walls resulting in a narrow flat roof/parapet and a rectangular form below the hipped roof. This approach is appropriate because it would result in a clear distinction between the historic cottage and the new build whilst reflecting the form of the main roof.

Although the two storey extension would occupy more than half of the width of the original dwelling and does not accord with the Council’s Design Guide in that respect, the form and relationship of these cottages differs from that of most dwellings in that the pair form an L-shape with different main elevations. The front elevation of the building extends to the gable end of the adjoining cottage. The appellant’s statement shows that in the context of the overall form of the pair, the proposed extension would not be excessive and the conflict with the Design Guidance therefore carries limited weight in this case. When seen from the street corner with [address], the adjoining cottage is more imposing than the appeal dwelling due to its projecting bay and white render and as its main elevation faces onto [address], the proposal would not have an unbalancing effect on the pair. When seen from immediately outside the site from [address], the proposed extension would be seen but the main part of the cottage cannot be seen clearly in this context. This, together with the set down of the proposed ridge, would mean that the new extension would be sufficiently subordinate in size and scale to both the dwelling and the pair and would not be overly dominant in the street scene.

The proposed external materials of vertical, blackened timber cladding and white render for the walls and grey slate for the roof form part of the contemporary design approach and would also ensure visual clarity between the historic and the new elements of the dwelling. The same cladding would also replace that in the existing two storey extension and the predominantly dark colour palette would help the modern elements of the dwelling to recede visually. The new windows would reflect the proportions of the windows in the main front elevation.

Thus, the proposal would replace some of the less appropriate features of the existing dwelling and would unify the remaining elements. This is a carefully designed and high quality scheme whose size, scale, form, detailing and materials would sit comfortably with the original dwelling and in the street scene.

In addition to the standard commencement condition, a condition is necessary requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, in order to provide certainty. A condition requiring matching external materials is not necessary because materials are specified in the plans and are acceptable. However, in the interests of the character and appearance of the dwelling and the CA, I have included a condition requiring samples of those materials to be approved.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would enhance the character and appearance of the dwelling and the CA and would accord with the development plan policies referred to above. The appeal should be allowed.