Appeal 3308171

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issues to be: a) the effect of the proposed development on the architectural integrity of the host property, and thereby the street scene, and; b) whether the proposal has demonstrated compliance with Policy D12-[name] of the London Plan (2021).

The appeal property, [site address] is a detached two-storey house located at the junction of [address] and [address]. It is a well-mannered modest sized dwelling with a single storey flat roof side extension.

The main façade faces [address] together with a long side garden. In contrast to the properties in [address] it presents a blank flank wall to that street frontage.

The appellant proposes removing the existing side extension and building a new part single part two-storey side extension. In addition, an enlarged entrance porch is proposed. The two-storey extension would maintain the same ridge and eaves lines as the host property.

The fenestration to the main façade as extended would then be reconfigured by the construction of two new bay windows and three pairs of first floor windows. A further bay window and first floor window is proposed in the existing blank flank wall facing [address].

I consider that the proposed alterations to the flank wall facing [address] would serve to enhance the visual appearance of property and the local context. Further, I agree with the appellant that a subservient extension is not an appropriate design solution in all cases.

However, in my judgement the proposed extension, would, when considered as a whole, by reason of its overly fussy fenestration pattern, form and design denude the established well-mannered character and appearance of the existing house. Furthermore, the house as extended would appear overly dominant and visually intrusive in the street scene.

I therefore conclude in respect of the first main issue that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the architectural integrity of the host property, and thereby the street scene contrary to the aims of Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 ([name] 2021) and Policies CS8 and DM10 of the Royal Borough of [site address] Local Development Framework-Core Strategy ([name] 2012) as they relate to, amongst other things, quality of design and the need to respect the character and appearance of the original building and enhance the local context.

Fire safety is covered by [name] of the building Regulations. Nevertheless, as set out in the guidance notes to Policy D12 of the London Plan 2021 it is necessary to ensure that development proposals achieve the highest standards of fire safety and therefore applicants should consider issues of fire safety before the building control application stage.

The appellant has not submitted any evidence to show that the matters, as set out in part A of the policy were considered at the initial design stage. However, in this case, given the overall scale of the project I consider that this is a matter that, if I were minded to allow the appeal could be addressed by a suitably worded

I therefore conclude in respect of the second main issue, that subject to the imposition of a condition the objectives of Policy D12 of the London Plan can be met in this case to ensure that the highest standards of fire safety could be achieved.

I appreciate that the proposed development would serve to enhance the residential accommodation and help bring the property up to modern Building Regulation standards. However, I am not persuaded that, in this case, these considerations outweigh the harm that I have identified if the development were to proceed as designed.

I have found that the proposal would, subject to the imposition of a condition accord with the aims of Policy D12 of the London Plan 2021. However, this matter does not outweigh my findings on the first main issue which to my mind is a compelling objection. I have considered all the all other matters raised, but none change my overall conclusion, reached on the planning merits of the proposal, that the appeal should not succeed.