Appeal 3307465

The appeal is dismissed.

The drawings Ref: 1078/DJ/02 provided as existing floor plan and front and side elevation does not represent the position found on the date of the site visit (SV), this is explained by the Council’s report which refers to an unauthorised full width canopy and an enforcement investigation resulting in the application which is the subject of this appeal. At the date of the site visit, the full width canopy appearing on that drawing had been curtailed to a roofed porch and entrance doors in wood-effect UPVC. I have determined this matter on the basis of my observations at the site visit.

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

No. [site address] (No.69) is an extended two storey semi-detached dwelling situated at the junction with [address] in a suburban area. [address] is a busy tree-lined urban road dominated by semi-detached houses with foregardens that overlook public open space on the opposite side of the road. Neighbouring properties present differing surface treatments, hedged boundaries and shrub planting, nevertheless, conveying a degree of consistency in setting and use of materials.

No.69 has been subject to changes which stand in unsympathetic contrast to its surroundings, presenting a wholly paved forecourt enclosed by perimeter walling painted in a strident colour. The brickwork of the house has also been overpainted. Overall the appeal site is visually discordant with its adjoining paired house, lacking the calm and even character of the surrounding area.

What is proposed intends to encase the existing porch with a canopy, projecting further forward to be supported by pillars. However, the manner in which this is to be achieved is far from clear on the drawings submitted. The drawings do not represent the size and position of the fenestration with any reasonable degree of accuracy such that, to my mind, any ‘plans’ condition would be meaningless and unenforceable to the degree which would be necessary to achieve a satisfactory appearance.

Even if these difficulties were absent, the suggested tiled roof to the canopy would likely be undeliverable due to the dimensional discrepancies and lack of adequate slope in the proposed tiled surface. Any attempt to implement what appears on the submitted drawings would, in my view, appear visually incoherent and tend to increase the obtrusive character of the appeal site. I therefore conclude that the proposal would fail to accord with the objectives set out in policies 7.4 and 7B of the Ealing Development Management DPD (2013) which seek to protect the character of streets and their visual amenity.

Taking all matters raised into account I conclude the proposal would thereby conflict with the development plan taken as a whole and, in consequence, the appeal cannot succeed.