Appeal 3306607

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council changed the description of development from that stated on the application form in the interests of clarity. I consider that the amended description accurately describes the appeal scheme and accordingly I have adopted the amended description in the heading above.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of area.

The site is within a predominantly residential area characterised typically by detached and semi-detached properties of varying styles. The appeal property is a detached dutch barn style.

The Havering Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2011) (the SPD) confirms that extensions should respect and be subordinate to the original dwelling.

The proposed development would alter the design of the property to a generic pitched roof two storey property with accommodation in the roof. There are different styles of properties in the immediate area some of which have been extended. Notwithstanding this the proposed development would not respect the existing building and would significantly change the architectural composition of the dwelling. There proposed development does not adhere to the guidance in the SPD.

The appellant has drawn my attention to other developments in the area, for instance No’s 36 and [address] which are similar house types to the appeal site. I observed during my site visit that whilst they have been extended both properties retain dutch barn features. The appeal site and these neighbouring properties maintain a harmony in terms of visual relationship. As such the proposed development would be out of keeping with this grouping of dutch barn properties.

No’s 28 and [address] have hip to gable extensions along with a rear dormer, however these properties are semi-detached and of a different house type. These and other developments in the area are not comparable to the proposed development before me. Notwithstanding this each development must be considered on its individual merits, and I have reached my conclusion based on the individual merit of the appeal proposal.

I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of area. There is conflict with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031 (2021) which amongst other things seeks to ensure developments are of high quality design which respect and complement distinctive local features of the site and reinforce and complement the local streetscene.

There is conflict with Policies D1, D3 and D4 of the London Plan (2021) which amongst other things seek to enhance local context, responding to local character and be high quality design.

The appellant highlights that the existing dwelling is in need of repair, due to rotten trusts beneath the dutch barn roof, causing damp and mould. I have no reason to dispute this, however I have not been provided with demonstrable evidence to persuade me that this is the only scheme available to alleviate this issue. I therefore give limited weight to the condition of the existing property.

For the above reasons I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.