Appeal 3330260

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form described the proposed development as “[name], [name] and Outbuilding”. The council changed this to the description used in the heading above. I have adopted it as it more clearly identifies the development proposed.

The main issues in this case are: i) the effect of the proposed hip to gable extension on the appearance of the pair of semi-detached houses and the streetscene; ii) the effect of the proposed rear extension on the host dwelling and the living conditions of the adjoining occupiers at Nos.13 & [address]; iii) the effect of the proposed rear dormer on the appearance of the host dwelling and the rear garden environment; iv) the effect of the proposed outbuilding on the appearance of the surroundings and the living conditions of the adjoining occupiers.

The appeal site is a semi-detached 2-storey house with a hipped roof. [address] it is a well-established residential street with substantial suburban houses of good appearance in a variety of styles. It is a long crescent in form, running from [address] to [address]. It is the character of the part of [address] in the vicinity of the appeal site that the following description particularly applies to. Although there is a variety of styles, the very pleasing character depends on a few characteristics, such as brickwork to the ground floor with render above, bow and oriel windows and applied timber detailing. The majority of houses have hipped roofs. A number of houses exhibit side additions, mostly in the form of subservient extensions under hipped roofs. I saw a few examples where changes have been made that do not reflect well on the original houses or the character of the immediate area.

Havering Local Plan has policies that seek to ensure a high standard design, which are in conformity with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The latest edition of the Framework (December 2023) emphasises that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, and that achieving well-designed and beautiful places is fundamental to the planning and development process (paragraph 131). Pursuing these objectives in some detail is the council’s [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). The SPD guidance was adopted so that the urban environment is well planned, designed and managed and to ensure that the appearance and value of property in the borough is not eroded. The effect of the proposed hip to gable extension on the appearance of the pair of semi-detached houses and the streetscene

The SPD points out that conversion of a hipped roof to a gable on one house of a pair of semi-detached dwellings can unbalance the pair, and when control is exercised where hipped roofs are characteristic, will not be acceptable.

Whilst there are examples of hip to gable enlargement in [address], the result is a lack of balance and loss of symmetry; balance and symmetry are both characteristic and of importance to the area generally. I see that the front elevation of the attached neighbour has been altered at some time, so that the symmetry has been harmed to a minor degree, and that there is also a flat roof side extension 2 doors away on the other side which does not sit well with the hipped roof. These anomalies do not persuade me that the proposed hip to gable is acceptable, and nor do the other examples that can be seen that degrade the general attractive character. That attractive character is of value to the local community and should be protected. The effect of the proposed rear extension on the host dwelling and the living conditions of the adjoining occupiers at No.13 & [address] and the rear garden environment

There is an existing modest ground floor extension to the existing house, but the proposal would bring the total length of extension, by measurement of the plans, to 7.25m, with a maximum height of 3.1m. The SPD sets out a 4m maximum depth for a semi-detached dwelling, with any length beyond that set in by 45o. This is to ensure a reasonable level of amenity for neighbouring properties. Number 17 has a pitched roofed conservatory at the rear and No.13 has a short extension including what appeared to be a ‘lean-to’ on the boundary with No.15. Neither of these compare with the overall depth and bulk of what is proposed, which I consider would result in a dominant and visually intrusive feature, detrimental to the character and appearance of the house, harmful to the character of the local garden environment, as well as being overbearing and to the detriment of the amenity of the adjoining occupiers at Nos.13 & 17. The effect of the proposed rear dormer on the appearance of the host dwelling and the rear garden environment

The SPD also has policy for the size and design of dormers, which includes, as in this case, that they should normally face the rear garden. However, even then, there is a need to ensure that the visual quality of the garden areas, which may embrace a considerable number of dwellings, is not harmed by unsightly additions to the roof. The SPD guidance states that dormers should be contained well within the body of the roof, by being set well back from the eaves, and should be located well below the ridge line of the roof. The proposal fails to follow this guidance, and the appearance of the proposed dormer would be out of scale and character with the existing house, having the appearance of a third storey: it would be materially harmful to the visual outlook and environment of surrounding rear gardens. The effect of the proposed outbuilding on the appearance of the surroundings and the living conditions of the adjoining occupiers

The proposed outbuilding appears to be largely intended as guest accommodation. It would certainly be large for an outbuilding purely serving the needs of a household, and at 7.7m by 7.7m would be overly dominant and incongruous in its setting. It would also be likely to bring additional activity deep into the garden area, bearing in mind its apparent prime purpose. These factors make it an unacceptable proposal.

My conclusions, for the reasons that I have set out above, are: i) the proposed hip to gable would result is a lack of balance and loss of symmetry to the pair of semi-detached houses, and thus degrade the general attractive character of the area which is otherwise of value to the local community; ii) the overall depth and bulk of the rear extension, would result in a dominant and visually intrusive feature, detrimental to the character and appearance of the house, harmful to the character of the local garden environment, as well as being detrimental of the amenity of the adjoining occupiers at Nos.13 & 17; iii) the appearance of the proposed dormer would be out of scale and character with the existing house and would be materially harmful to the visual outlook and environment of surrounding rear gardens; and iv) the proposed outbuilding would be overly dominant and incongruous in its setting and be likely to bring additional activity deep into the garden area, which would be harmful to the garden environment of neighbours.

The appellant justifies the proposals on the basis that they are the same as those built by neighbours and would coexist in complete harmony with appearance in the whole street. It will be apparent that I do not agree.

For the reasons given, I will dismiss the appeal.