Appeal 3355110

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council notes that work had already commenced at the appeal site on a hipped to gable side roof extension and rear dormer extension in September 2024; that neither of these had received approval under a lawful development certificate; and that there are no enforcement investigations in respect of the appeal property.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a two storey, brick-built, end of terrace dwelling. It is located in a prominent position at the corner of [address] and [address].

The appeal property is set back from [address] behind a low wall and a small parking area, and it has an attached flat-roofed single storey garage to the side. A brick wall runs along the side of the property, adjacent to [address] and this provides for a narrow passageway between the appeal property’s garage and the wall. The passageway leads to a rear garden.

The surrounding area is residential and is characterised by the presence of two storey terraced dwellings. Dwellings tend to be set back from the road behind low walls and small front gardens and/or parking areas and have gardens to the rear. The presence of street trees and gardens adds a sense of greenery to what is a densely developed residential area.

During my site visit, I observed that Number [address], opposite the appeal dwelling, has a flat-roofed single storey garage to the side. I noted that the presence of these low single storey garages combines with that of gardens and parking areas to provide for a spacious entrance to [address] from [address].

Also, during my site visit, I noted that many dwellings in the area have been altered and/or extended and that such changes tend to appear in keeping with the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Dwellings have retained numerous original features, with the presence of double height bays, decorative front gables and brick chimneys providing for an attractive sense of the area’s heritage. This lends an attractive uniform character to the appearance of the area.

The proposed development would result in the appeal property extending to the side at two storey height and to the rear at ground and two storey height. The proposed two storey side extension would not be set back from the front elevation, and I find that this would combine with the proposed height and width of the proposal to result in it failing to appear as a subordinate addition.

Rather, the side extension would draw undue attention to itself as a bulky and dominant addition. The harm arising from this be exacerbated as a result of the prominent corner location of the appeal dwelling, whereby the proposal would be widely visible in its surroundings.

Further, the proposal would, as a tall and bulky side extension, severely detract from the spacious entrance to [address] from [address], resulting in the appeal property appearing cramped on its plot in contrast to its surroundings.

In addition to the above, the proposed rear extension would introduce a tall and bulky first floor extension that would appear out of character with its surroundings and which would draw attention to itself as an incongruous feature that would be highly visible from the side and rear of the appeal property. This would add to the unduly dominant appearance of the proposed development and would further detract from the area’s uniform and spacious qualities.

Taking all of the above into account, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework; to Policy 53 of the Local Plan1; to the Council’s Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document (2010); and to the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2010), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

In support of the proposal, the appellant refers to other developments elsewhere. However, there is no substantive information to demonstrate that these other developments are so similar to the development before me as to provide for direct comparison. 1 Waltham Forest Local Plan Part 1 (2024).

In any case, I have found that the proposed development would result in significant harm, and this is not something that is reduced by the presence of other developments elsewhere.

For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed.