Appeal 3328826

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was revised during the life of the appeal. The substantive elements thereof as they relate to the appeal scheme have not changed. I have not therefore sought the views of the main parties.

The description of development as detailed on the application form has been amended in subsequent documents. I have adopted the description included in the Council’s Decision Notice, as it details the appeal proposal clearly and concisely, but have omitted the terms which are not acts of development.

The Council’s Draft Local Plan ([name]) is currently under examination and is likely to be capable of being found legally compliant and sound, subject to main modifications. Most relevant to this appeal are Policies SP2, DMD1, DMD4 and DMD6 (now DMD5 as a result of the main modifications). As the [name] has reached an advanced stage of preparation, these policies are afforded moderate weight.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwellings and surrounding area, with particular regard to [name], a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA).

The appeal properties lie in an established residential area which forms part of the [name]. Built between 1921 and 1934 as part of the post-World War One Homes for Heroes initiative, this was the largest public housing scheme ever undertaken in Britain1, which the Council regards as a NDHA due to its historic significance. Despite some modern interventions, the area retains its distinctive layout with corner plots providing some degree of openness and visual relief from surrounding built forms. Together with the simple and cohesive architectural design which defines the properties, these elements give the area a pleasant suburban feel and sense of uniformity.

The appeal sites comprise end-of-terrace properties with simple hipped roofs located prominently on opposite corner plots framing the entrance to [address] and overlooking playing fields. Both sites make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the [name] and its significance as a NDHA, in particular due to the largely open nature of the corner plots.

The proposed side extensions would appear as disproportionate additions, which would detract from the uniformity and scale of the host properties and the wider terraces they are part of. Whilst the two-storey extensions would be set one metre away from their [address] boundary, they would, due to their excessive bulk, massing and scale, reduce the size of the side gap and harmfully diminish the open character of both corner plots.

Furthermore, the proposed developments would also protrude significantly beyond the front building line of the houses fronting [address] and disrupt the existing alignment. This would create a sense of enclosure at the [address] junction entrance and harmfully reduce the openness of the area. Taking all this into consideration, the erosion of the corner plots would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area and [name], to the detriment of its significance as a NDHA.

The use of matching bricks, relocation of the front door from the side elevation to the front of the dwelling and a new arched entrance would positively contribute to the significance of [name] by maintaining a uniform façade that is in keeping with the rhythm and symmetry of the terraced block. It is also noted that the proposal would provide additional residential accommodation. However, these considerations do not outweigh the harm caused by the scale and massing of the two-storey side extensions.

The appellant has referenced other extensions which have been constructed in the area. I do not have the full details of the circumstances which led to these particular schemes being accepted and cannot therefore be certain that they represent a direct parallel to the proposals, notably in respect of development plan policy. They have accordingly been ascribed very limited weight.

Given the above, the appeal scheme would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the [name]. The proposals would therefore be contrary to the design aims of Policies D1 and D4 of the London Plan (July 2021), Policy CP3 of the Barking and [name] (July 2010), Policy BP11 of the Barking and Dagenham Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document 1 Paragraph 5.2.9 of the Barking and Dagenham Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document – March 2011. (March 2011) and Section 5.4 of the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (February 2012), as well as paragraphs 135 and 139 of the Framework.

The appeal scheme would also conflict with Policy HC1 of the London Plan, Policy BP2 of the DPD and paragraph 209 of the Framework, which notably seek to conserve the significance of heritage assets and preserve areas which are locally distinctive and historically important such as the [name]. For similar reasons, the proposal would not accord with Policies SP2, DMD1, DMD4 and DMD5 of the [name], which also seek to secure high quality design and sustain the significance of heritage assets.

There are no material considerations, which indicate that the appeal should be determined, other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s recommendation and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.