Appeal 3330652

The appeal is dismissed.

Since the appeal was lodged a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been published. However, as the policies of most relevance to this proposal have not changed fundamentally it has not been necessary to seek further comments from the parties.

The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. [name] of the appeal form a different wording has been entered, but as the parties have not provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed I have used the one given in the original application.

The Council cited policies of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham’s Draft Local Plan 2037 (Regulation 19 [name], December 2021) in its decision. Although requested, the Council did not clarify the status of the policies, and whether or not they were subject to any modification during the examination process. As such, I have not taken them into account.

At the appeal site visit, it was evident that an extension has been constructed on the site of the appeal proposal, although it differs from the appeal submission in matters including roof design, height and openings. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined this appeal on the basis of the development as proposed on the submitted plans, rather than as an alteration to the extension which has been built.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property, the terrace of which it forms part and the area.

The appeal property is an end-terrace house on a corner plot which, despite being set back from the road, is prominent in the streetscene due to its position at a crossroads. The side boundary of the property is next to an open green space divided by a footpath, which mirrors that on the opposite side of [address]. However, whilst these green spaces create a sense of openness at the crossroads, the buildings around this junction vary in scale, form and siting, and do not materially contribute to any sense of space.

The terrace of which the appeal property forms part is already unbalanced, as the host property has been extended to the side in a manner not found at the opposite terrace end. However, there are few viewpoints where both ends of the terrace would be seen together, and as such the proposal would not cause material harm to the symmetry of the terrace.

Nevertheless, as a prominent corner plot, the lantern roof of the existing extension is a noticeable feature in the streetscene. That extension appears proportionate to the host dwelling, but the introduction of a further addition with a second lantern roof would create a large and dominant ‘conservatory’- style structure that would be out of keeping with the form and architecture of the main house. The unbalanced spacing of the lanterns would add to the awkward appearance of the roof form. Although the design, materials and detailing may ‘mimic’ the existing extension, this would not mitigate the additional scale that the proposal would add to the side of the property. The impact would be at odds with the guidance in the Council’s ‘[name] and Alterations’ Supplementary Planning Document 2012 (REA), for side extensions to be particularly sympathetic in terms of their form, roof treatment and detailing.

However, I am mindful that there is a two-storey dwelling built up to the opposite side boundary of [address], and large buildings on the other side of the crossroads. In this regard, I do not consider that the width of the addition would harm the openness of the corner, but that does not alter my conclusion of harm to the dwelling itself. Although the appellant has referred to the vicinity being dominated by extensions, none seen at the appeal site visit appeared to be directly comparable to the design of the proposal, and as such offer limited support.

I appreciate that the dwelling is not listed, nor within a conservation area. However, the Framework is clear in its objective of achieving well-designed and beautiful places, and this applies to all locations, not only those with heritage value. The Framework requires that developments should add to the overall quality of the area and be visually attractive as a result of good architecture and layout, and for the reasons outlined above the proposal would not secure these aims.

I acknowledge that the proposal would not cause any overlooking or loss of daylight/sunlight to adjoining residents, but this absence of additional harm would not resolve the impact of the design on the building. I can appreciate the benefits of the additional accommodation for occupants of the appeal property, but in the manner proposed this would be at the expense of the character and appearance of the dwelling and the streetscene.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the appeal property and the streetscene. It would conflict with the design objectives of the Framework, and with Policy D4 of The London Plan 2021, insofar as it seeks to deliver high quality design; and with Core Strategy1 Policy CP3, which amongst other criteria expects high quality development which respects and strengthens local character and provides a sense of place. It would also be contrary to Policies BP8 and BP11 of the Council’s Borough Wide Development Policies Development Plan Document 2011, as supported by the REA, which together require all developments to protect or enhance the character and amenity of the area.

For the above reasons, I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.