Appeal 6001309

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

The appeal site comprises an end-terraced dwelling occupying a prominent corner plot at the junction of [address] and [address]. The property appears to have been extended at single storey level to the side and rear. It lies within the [name], which the Council identifies as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA). The significance of the NDHA stems from its development as part of the “Homes for Heroes” initiative between 1921 and 1934, at the time forming the largest municipal estate in the world. Properties within the estate are notable for their simplicity, functional design, and consistency of appearance, generally following linear building lines. This section of [address] is characterised by highly uniform terraced housing, where the largely unaltered facades and limited extensions make a positive contribution to the estate’s original character.

The proposals would substantially increase the size of the property, wrapping around the end of the terrace and altering its original form. Although the extensions would be set back from the principal elevation, their combined massing and height would compete visually with the host building and unacceptably erode its architectural simplicity. The first-floor side element would also infill one of the wider gaps between blocks, diminishing the designed sense of openness that is a defining characteristic of the street scene. The cumulative effect would be a visually intrusive and discordant form that would undermine the integrity of the terrace and diminish the quality of the original design.

The National Planning Policy Framework advises that, when weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect NDHAs, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. I would attach substantial weight to the harm I have found as it would relate to key aspects of the estate’s significance, its uniformity, simplicity and openness. While the development would provide additional living space for the appellant, this benefit carries limited weight, as it has not been demonstrated that such accommodation could not be achieved through less harmful means.

Consequently, the proposals would harm the character and appearance of the area and, by association, the integrity of the estate as a NDHA. As such it would conflict with Policy D4 of The London Plan, the Spatial Development Strategy for [name] (2021), Policies SP2, DMD1, DMD4 and DMD5 of the London Borough of [site address] ’s Local Plan (2024) and guidance contained in The London Borough of [site address] ’s [name] and [name] (2012). Amongst other things, these seek to ensure new development is of high-quality design that preserves local character and heritage significance.

For the reasons given above, the appeal proposals would conflict with the development plan and there are no sufficiently weighty material considerations to indicate a decision 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.