Appeal 3319929

The appeal is dismissed.

Since it more accurately describes the nature of the proposal the description of the development used in the Council’s decision notice has been adopted in preference to that seen in the original application form.

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

The appeal property, a semi-detached property, stands at a corner, at the junction of [address] and [address], in an area displaying distinct suburban characteristics. The property has a lengthy planning history including, most recently, a planning permission for extensions to the side and rear, and alterations to the roof. Building works were in progress when I visited, and the works subject of the most recent permission as they affect the external appearance of the house were substantially complete.

The plans subject of the appeal, existing and proposed, do not accurately reflect that built. However, the current proposal would be comprised of a flat roofed, first floor extension above the already built single storey ground floor extension. It would project about half the depth of the ground floor extension1 and would extend along most of the width of the dwelling’s rear elevation.

Being a corner property, the side and rear of the house is prominent and exposed to view when approaching along [address], and [address] 1 Which has been built with a flat roof rather than the sloping roof shown in the submitted plans. from the north-west. The proposed extension, when combined with those already built, would appear as a cramped development giving the harmful appearance of an overdeveloped site. What remains of the original character of the dwelling would be irretrievably lost. This additional element in an already highly developed and prominent rear elevation strikes me as a clear example of poor design. I do not therefore share the appellant’s view that the appeal proposal would be consistent with the prevailing pattern of development in the locality or that it would appear as a subordinate addition to the original host property.

Judgments of this nature are essentially subjective in nature but, to my mind, the proposal, were it built, by reason of its poor design would prove harmful to local visual amenity. The Government attaches considerable importance to design, and the National Planning Policy Framework advises that ‘development that is not well designed should be refused’. I propose to follow that guidance here.

I therefore conclude that the development would materially and harmfully affect the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings. Accordingly, a clear conflict arises with the thrust of those provisions of policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (CLP) directed to achieving high quality design and respecting local character. I appreciate that one of the objectives of policy D3 of the London Plan directed to optimising site capacity may be met, but the poor quality of the proposed design is such that the other main objective of the policy, that development be design led, is not met.

All other matters referred to in the representations have been taken into account, including all other references to the Framework, but no other matter is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations that led me to my conclusions.