Appeal 3337177

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for development described as ‘loft conversion with additional hipped roof over existing first floor and front extension to garage’ at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/03105/HSE, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1577/7, 1577/8, 1577/9, 1577/9A, 1577/10, 1577/11, 1577/12, 1577/13.

The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

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 Council do not object to the loft conversion and hipped roof elements of the appeal scheme. I have no reason to disagree with their conclusions. My recommendation therefore focusses on the single storey front extension. The main issue being its effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is a semi-detached building with units of a similar nature surrounding the site. Many local dwellings retain their original form, but some have been extended. The dwellings on the same side of [address] as the appeal building are staggered and sat at an angle relative to their street frontage. This adds relief to the street scene which has no clear uniformity in the building line. Buildings use a mix of materials including render (of varying colour), brick and tiles.

Whilst the extension would be seen from the street, the proposal coming forward of the front elevation would protrude only marginally and no further than number [address]. The staggered nature of the pairs of buildings and lack of preciseness in the consistency of the resulting building line would readily absorb the front extension. The proposal’s roofline would adjoin to the existing ground floor roof covering and the use of a hip would assimilate effectively. The eaves and the ridgeline of the extension would match the existing ground floor roofscape. As a result, it would give the appearance of continuity and symmetry between the two semi-detached buildings. As a result, the extension would not be seen as a dominant addition.

With these matters in mind, the front extension would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, the proposal would comply with Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018) and Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) which together seek to ensure that development proposals are of a high-quality design and standard.

I have imposed the standard time limit condition and referred to the approved plans for enforcement purposes. In addition, it is necessary to add a condition to ensure that the materials used are to match the host dwelling and thus be in keeping with the area.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan. I therefore recommend it be allowed, subject to the conditions set out.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, subject to the conditions set out above.