Appeal 6000498

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.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out above which is taken from the application form, as per its accompanying plans, the scheme also includes the erection of a front porch and the installation of rooflights within the raised roof. More accurately, a single storey rear extension would replace the existing conservatory. The revised wording used in the Council’s decision letter and repeated on the appeal form erroneously includes two storey side extensions, which do not form part of the scheme. In any event, it is clear from the Council’s delegated officer report that it dealt with the proposal on the basis of the accompanying plans, and I shall do the same.

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

The appeal site is a detached bungalow on a corner plot within a well-established residential area. This part of the street is characterised by single and two storey dwellings of various design, with an array of roof forms particularly apparent to a series of bungalows located on the opposing side of [address]. Despite this range of house types, the streetscene is unified by the prevailing response of building heights to the sloping topography of the road, such that each property’s eaves and ridgelines are typically at the same or below the level of their immediately neighbouring higher dwelling. The existing relationship between the appeal dwelling and adjacent [address] (No 42) displays this positive characteristic of the road.

The appeal dwelling includes first floor accommodation within its central roof space and has a building line forward of both the adjacent paired semi-detached bungalows above it (Nos 42 and 44) and the terrace to the other side of [address]. This forward projection, together with its corner siting and substantial depth extending alongside [address], combine to give the existing building a prominence around the highway junction that belies its single storey height.

Whilst there are a variety of house types and forms nearby, the proposal would alter the character of the existing dwelling to a harmful extent. The scheme would not extend the building towards [address], but the proposed increase in height for the full depth of the dwelling would give rise to a bulky and dominant presence within the locality. The building’s resultant mass would be markedly larger than those within its immediate context, with its hefty overall proportions exacerbated through its detached corner siting, projecting front building line and the deep expanse of its pronounced side elevation.

I acknowledge that the upward extension would be constructed in matching materials, with the roof rebuilt to mirror its present form. However, these factors would not outweigh the harm to the character and appearance of the existing bungalow and streetscene as arising from its incongruous massing.

The proposed street scene plan indicates that the resulting eaves and ridge heights would not exceed those of No 42, of which is set at a higher ground level. However, the relative building heights shown on the existing and proposed plans are not consistent with my observations on site. My reservations about the accuracy of the drawings mean that I cannot be confident that the proposal would respect the characteristic pattern of building heights within this part of [address] as identified above. In any event, it is primarily the conspicuously overbearing bulk of the building’s ensuing side elevation adjacent to the highway junction that would be harmful within the locality.

The proposed porch and single storey rear extension would be modest additions which, on their own, may be acceptable. However, when combined with the proposed increase in height and bulk of the main dwelling, these single storey elements would further exacerbate the prominence of the appeal property, and the associated harm to the street scene.

For these reasons, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area. It would therefore conflict with Policy D4 of the London Plan 2021 and Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016 – 2031. These policies taken together, amongst other things, seek that development is of a high quality design, responds to the pattern of development, respects the established scale, massing and height of the surrounding context 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.

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.