Appeal 3320166

The appeal is dismissed.

The decision notice refers to policies within the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Draft Local Plan 2037 (Regulation 19 [name], December 2021). I note that the Draft Local Plan is at an advanced stage of adoption. However, there is insufficient information before me to establish whether the policies referred to by the Council are the subject of any unresolved objections. As such, I afford limited weight to the policies in the emerging Local Plan.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and the street scene.

The appeal property is a 2-storey house with a utilitarian garage to the side, a single-storey addition to the rear and a porch addition at the front. It forms one end of a short, red-brick terrace and is situated within the [name] next to the junction between [address] and [address].

The Becontree Estate is a non-designated heritage asset referred to in the Council’s policies and defined as an Area of [name]. The estate has historic significance having been built as ‘Homes fit for Heroes’ in the interwar period and at the time was the largest public housing estate in the world. The area’s townscape significance lies in its cottage estate design which remains evident with symmetrical arrangements of mainly hipped roof, semi-detached and terraced houses. The significance of the area has however been denuded over time by the removal of soft landscaping to provide off-street car parking and by the erection of unsightly porches and garages.

I note that the end of terrace property immediately next to the appeal site, [address], benefits from an extant planning permission, granted at appeal1, for the construction of a two-storey side extension and the relocation of the porch to the front of the property. The existence of this permission and my colleague’s assessment are matters to which I attach significant weight.

The proposal would primarily comprise the demolition of the unsightly garage and the erection of a 2-storey side addition. This would have a hipped roof and would be constructed of materials to match those in the host building with window openings of appropriate sizes. Whilst the side addition would result in some loss of openness on the corner, this would be outweighed by the removal of the unsightly garage and by the provision of soft-landscaping within the corner garden area, which could be secured by a planning condition.

The proposal would also include the replacement of the small porch with a larger porch with a dual-pitched roof. This would be an entirely alien and incongruous addition to this particular terrace which, due to its siting, size and design, would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the street scene.

[name] have found that, subject to the imposition of a planning condition to secure soft landscaping, the side extension would not have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the street scene, a split decision allowing only this part of the proposal cannot be issued because the porch and side addition are contiguous development.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal fails to accord with Policy D4 of the London Plan (2021), Policies CP2 and CP3 of the Planning for the Future of Barking and [name] (2010) and Policies BP2, BP8 and BP11 of the Planning for the Future of Barking and Dagenham Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document (2011). Amongst other matters these policies seek to ensure development recognises local character and promotes good design. There is also conflict with the aims of the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2012) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) which seeks to ensure development is sympathetic to local character.

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