Appeal 3290406

[name] and B are dismissed.

As set out above there are two appeals on this site which involve similar forms of development. I have considered each proposal on its individual merits. However, to avoid duplication I have dealt with the two schemes together, except where otherwise indicated. Appeal Decisions APP/U5930/D/22/3290406 & APP/U5930/D/22/3291924

The main issue is the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

The appeal property is a narrow end-of-terrace 2-storey house with accommodation within the roof. It is situated on a corner with its narrow principal frontage facing [address] and a long flank elevation facing [address].

The property has been extended and re-modelled in the past. As a consequence, its appearance is somewhat at odds with that of the surrounding terraced houses. These generally retain their original Victorian form and appearance and therefore contribute positively to the character and appearance of the street scene. Most notably these surrounding properties are set away from their street boundaries, albeit by short distances, and the corner houses include characterful bay windows and street entrances within their long flank elevations.

Both proposals would involve part single and part 2-storey additions to the side of the rear part of the appeal property. The development proposed under Appeal A would include a 2-storey element that would extend close to the side boundary. This element would be forward of the side building line of the property to the rear, [address]. It would be entirely at odds with the character and appearance of the area and result in an overly prominent and incongruous element in the street scene that would also unbalance the form of the appeal property.

For these reasons the development proposal under Appeal A would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. It therefore fails to comply with Policy CS15 of the Waltham Forest Local Plan Core Strategy (2012) and Policies DM4 and DM29 of the London Borough of Waltham Forest Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013). Amongst other matters these policies expect residential extensions to relate to the original host property and to respect the surrounding area’s character. It is also contrary to the aims of the Council’s Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document (2010) and the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (RESPD).

The development proposed under Appeal B would be less prominent due to the fact that the upper parts would not extend forward of the existing main flank wall. However, the long single-storey side addition would extend close to, and above, the side boundary wall and extend above this wall. In addition, the 2- storey element would create a long uniform street elevation that would be incompatible with the pattern of development in the area. Due to its height, bulk, massing and design this proposal would also have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area and therefore fails to comply with the aforementioned polices.

I note that planning permission was granted in 2019 for a scheme that included a single-storey side addition (ref: 190743). This permitted scheme would not include enlargement of the upper floors and is therefore materially different from both appeal proposals. Examples of side additions to properties in the Appeal Decisions APP/U5930/D/22/3290406 & APP/U5930/D/22/3291924 area have been provided, some of which demonstrate the level of harm that can result from development in these exposed locations. As each application and appeal needs to be considered on its individual merits I attribute limited weight to the 2019 permission and the side additions to properties in the area.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that both appeals should fail.