Appeal 3373776

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.

I observed during my site visit that a flat roofed wooden clad single storey front extension, which has been the subject of an Enforcement Notice1 from the Council, had been partially demolished.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area.

The appeal site is a two storey dwelling which forms the far end property of a short modern terrace positioned perpendicular to [address]. The terrace is characterised by a consistent front building line and prominent gable features which provide a uniform appearance. The appeal dwelling, which sits at the most elevated end of the block, has an existing two storey side extension that is set back slightly from the front building line, so that it appears subservient. The existing dwelling therefore retains, and contributes to, the terrace’s orderly, rhythmical overall appearance. This positively unifying characteristic is also evident across neighbouring terraces within the road.

Designed with a mono-pitched roof and double doors within its side return wall, the proposed addition would adjoin the front of the existing recessed side extension, in 1 Council’s ref: 24/00426/ENFC doing so concealing the front facing window serving the dwelling’s study. By extending significantly forward of the dwelling and terrace’s uninterrupted original principal elevation, the proposal would harmfully disrupt the building’s cohesive basic form and layout. Whilst it would incorporate matching materials and be of modest height, the extension’s significant forward projection would be an incongruous feature in the locality. It would fail to respect the well-established harmonious character and appearance of the host block and its adjacent terraces within [address].

I acknowledge that existing vegetation and low walls within neighbouring properties would limit the extension’s visibility from the public realm. Nevertheless, the fundamental unsuitability of the proposal to its context would still be apparent from the road, an effect compounded by its raised position.

Delivering high quality design also encompasses the need to provide good standards of internal accommodation. By closing off the only existing window serving the dwelling’s study, the extension would result in no means of natural light, outlook and ventilation for this habitable room. Consequently, the proposal is unsatisfactory in this respect, and although the appellant suggests the house’s layout could be reconfigured, such changes would not address the overall harm caused by the scheme.

On this basis, the proposed extension would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. It would therefore fail to comply with Policies SP1 and SP3 of the Newham Local Plan 2018 (Local Plan) and Policy D4 of the London Plan 2021. Taken together these policies, amongst other things, seek that development is of a high quality design which respects and reinforces local character and distinctiveness. In addition, the proposal would conflict with the objective of achieving well-designed places set out in paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The proposal would also be contrary to the guidance set out within the Council’s Altering and Extending your Home Supplementary Planning Document 2018, which advises that domestic extensions should complement the character and appearance of the original house and the group of buildings of which it forms a part, and that internal rooms should be well lit by daylight, retain outlook and have opening windows.

The Council’s decision notice additionally refers to Policy H1 of the Local Plan and Policy D1 of the London Plan, however these appear to be of little if any relevance to the proposed house extension. Whilst it would cause harm to character and appearance, it would not be unneighbourly, so Local Plan Policy SP8 is also of limited relevance.

I acknowledge that the proposal is intended to meet the occupying family’s growing storage needs, however, this private benefit would attract limited weight in support of the scheme, and would not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. Moreover, there may be alternative options for providing storage for bikes and other equipment which do not involve extending the house in the harmful manner proposed.

I note the extension would not result in the loss of biodiversity, and that the appellant has expressed willingness to introduce enhancement measures such as planters. However, no such features are shown on the plans, and even if they were, this would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the area that I have identified.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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