Appeal 6000434

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.

During my site visit, I observed a development which appeared the same as that shown on the application plans. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that planning permission is sought to retain the development that has been constructed.

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

The appeal dwelling is a two-storey detached property on a residential street characterised by two-storey detached and semi-detached dwellings. The other side of the street features terraced properties. Overall, the dwellings are largely free from alteration and extensions and generally have a uniformity in their character and appearance with hipped roofs and attractive front gables the predominant architectural form. This creates a sense of balance that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

In this context, the hip to gable extension at the appeal site is read as an unacceptably anomalous feature on the most publicly prominent elevation of the building. Whilst the appeal scheme utilises the existing dwellings footprint and is an efficient way to maximise space it negatively impacts the hipped symmetry the appeal dwelling previously possessed within the street scene, emphasising the incongruity of the additions which unbalance the prevailing character and appearance of the area. I note the reference made to the extension at No 20 however, unlike the appeal scheme, the side extension maintains the hipped roof form and therefore does not harm the character and appearance of the area in the same way the appeal scheme does.

The dormer window to the rear subsumes a large portion of the roof slope resulting in the rear of the building presenting as top heavy. Taken together, the alterations detrimentally affect the original qualities of the appeal dwelling and overwhelm its original design. This visual intrusion is readily discernible in views from the surrounding rear gardens. Even if some elements of the development could be conducted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) it is the totality of the development’s scale and design that I have found to be harmful.

The dormer accords with the Council’s Residential Extensions and [name] (2011) in terms of the use of matching materials, and in it being set in from the sides. However, its size and fenestration pattern conflict with the guidance, which advises that dormers should be set well back from the eaves and for the windows to relate well to the windows of the original house in proportion, design and position. Consequently, the dormer does not respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

The development has materials to match the host dwelling and does not result in any significant consequences for the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, due to its prominent contrasting gable roof design and increased bulk, overall, the appeal scheme results in a conspicuous development.

I am aware of other examples of hip to gable and rear dormer extensions in the wider surrounding area referenced by the appellant on [address], The Ridgeway and elsewhere on [address]. Nonetheless, the design of these do not represent the prevailing character of the area and these examples are also not in the direct vicinity of the appeal site. Furthermore, I am mindful that each development must be assessed on its own merits. The other examples do not therefore lead me away from my above findings.

To conclude, the development harmfully effects the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. As such it conflicts with Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan (2021) which amongst other things requires development to have an acceptable impact on local amenity and the built environment, and to demonstrate high and consistent design standards.

The appellant outlines that an elderly relative resides at [address] and that the layout of the development is essential to meet the housing needs of their family. Age is a relevant protected characteristic to which the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) applies. I have therefore had due regard to section 149 of the PSED, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it.

I have also considered the rights of the appellant under Article 1 of the [name] and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) which state that every person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their home, and the right to respect for private and family life. Dismissal of the appeal could interfere with these rights. However, these are qualified rights, and any interference may be justified where it is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society, applying the principle of proportionality.

I have carefully considered the appellant’s personal circumstances. However, there is insufficient specific evidence for me to draw a clear conclusion that the appeal scheme, and in particular, the configuration and use of the whole development, is the only reasonable option available to meet the family’s needs. Accordingly, there is limited evidence to suggest that the dismissal of the appeal would have a disproportionate effect on the personal circumstances identified by the appellant, when weighed against the planning harm set out above.

For the same reasons, the potential interference with the qualified rights in the HRA is proportionate in this case, when balanced against the need to uphold the operation of the planning system. This includes the requirement for development to accord with the development plan; that being made and applied in the wider public interest.

There are modest, time limited economic benefits arising from the construction stage and expenditure by the occupiers, albeit there is limited guarantee of the extent to which this will be directed to local businesses or services. The Council’s handling of the case has not affected my consideration of the planning merits of the scheme.

The appeal scheme does not accord with the development plan, read as a whole, and there are no material considerations that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. I therefore 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.