Appeal 3335298

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 effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal building is a two storey semi detached dwelling with a gable roof. This has departed from the adjoined neighbour’s hip but appears to be so as the result of an attic space conversion. The wider area is defined by similar sized dwellings which are mainly semis. There are some detached examples. There is a pleasant consistency to the size, scale and siting of built form in the area which contributes positively to its character and appearance. This is reinforced by, where they exist, extensions being subservient and following the form and materials of the host dwelling.

The use of a hipped roof to the proposed extension would suit the adjoined neighbour but jar awkwardly with the building to which it would be attached. Additionally, the form of the proposed development would be excessively wide, creating the impression of another dwelling. In each instance, the proposed extension would fail to respect the form, scale and design of its host and appear overly dominant. This would, in turn, be unreflective of the quality of the area’s consistency.

The proposal would be similar in width to the existing garages and a setback from the frontage of the house would be incorporated. However, the cumulative effect of the width taken with the height of the proposal would result in the above harm. Such that the scheme would fail to comply with Policies SP4.1, DM10.1, DM10.7 of The Croydon Local Plan (2018), Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021), and the relevant design quality and suitability paragraphs of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023 (the Framework).

The significant difference between the appeal scheme and the perceived precedents, some of which I was able to view at my site visit, is that they involve two storey extensions that both match the style of the existing roof of the host dwelling and are sufficiently subservient. Regardless, each scheme for new development is decided on its own merits with regard to their own specific context. Therefore, I am not led to recommending allowing the appeal in their light. I am also mindful of the proposals being acceptable in other regards, but a lack of harm cannot be used to weigh against harm. It is accordingly a neutral matter.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight that would indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal be dismissed.

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