Appeal 6000450

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 above description has been agreed by the appellant and taken from the decision notice. It sufficiently describes the appeal scheme. The main issue in regard to the determination of which is its effect on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal building is a two-storey, semi-detached dwelling with a combination of modest single and two storey extensions to the front, side and rear, together with a side detached garage. Situated next to a small area of public open space and footpath, the dwelling lies at the end of a run of similarly designed houses, several of which have been respectfully enlarged. Although there are examples of flat roofed dormer windows to nearby properties, some of which the appellant refers me to, I observed that none of the properties within this row contains such an addition. By virtue of the sympathetic scale and appearance of their existing extensions and alterations, the host dwelling and its adjacent neighbouring houses along [address]’s eastern side positively contribute to a consistent and largely original residential character.

The proposed dormer would span across the dwelling’s original width and possess a flat roof constructed only slightly down the main ridgeline. Whilst it would be set up from the dwelling’s eaves, as a result of the combination of its substantial width and overall volume, uncoordinated windows to those below and box-like shape, the dormer would not harmonise with the host dwelling and the prevailing form and scale of neighbouring properties. I recognise the sporadic presence of similarly large dormers within the broader surroundings, however the existence of these unsympathetically bulky enlargements reaffirms my view that this element of the scheme would be a harmful addition.

Although not correctly shown on the proposed roof plan, the proposed enlarged first floor rear extension would appear to interact awkwardly with the lower part of the dormer. In contrast to the well-considered central positioning and matching roof pitch of the existing first floor element, due to its unbalanced siting and discordant roof design, the expanded extension would contribute to a disorderly and jumbled appearance to the rear. This harmful effect would be compounded by its significant proportions and massing, which alongside the sizeable dormer, would dominate the back of the building, as seen from the adjacent footpath.

By infilling the small remaining gap in the built form across the plot’s extensive width and through the vast expanse of its rearward section, the proposed single storey extensions would add considerably to the dwelling’s already much enlarged footprint. Whilst it would be of limited wider visibility beyond the rear garden’s boundary fencing, the ground floor element would nevertheless add to the unduly dominant scale and appearance of the scheme to the rear. The ensuing shallow roof pitch over the garage conversion would meanwhile clash with the building’s existing roof forms.

I appreciate that all the extensions would be built with matching materials and that the scheme would have only limited visual impact upon the [address] street scene. High quality design should however be achieved by all development regardless of its degree of public visibility. In any event, the proposals would be visible from the footpath to the side, where their ungainly combined appearance would be plainly at odds with the scale and character of the existing dwelling and locality.

For these reasons, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 – 2031 (Local Plan), which amongst other things, seeks that development is of a high quality design, respects the established scale and massing of the building and groups of buildings, and complements the local streetscene. The proposal would also be contrary to the guidance set out within the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document 2011, which cautions that extensions and alterations should not dominate or detract from the character of the original house and surrounding houses.

I have determined the appeal on the basis that express planning permission is applied for. Any fallback in respect of permitted development rights for the single storey rear extension in this instance is unproven as it may be subject to an assessment under the prior approval regime which is not before me. I cannot therefore be sufficiently confident that there would be a realistic prospect of a similar addition being erected under permitted development rights. In any event, this comprises just one element of the appeal scheme. The harms I have found would extend to wider matters which would be unaffected by such a position.

Whilst the proposal would cause harm to character and appearance, it would not unduly affect the living conditions of existing and future occupiers, and so Local Plan Policy 7 is of little if any relevance.

For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate an outcome other than in accordance therewith. 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.