Appeal 6002464

The appeal is dismissed.

Prior approval1 exists for a single storey extension to the rear of the property, extending to a depth of approximately 6m, which is comparable to that sought under this appeal. Accordingly, the Council does not oppose this element of the scheme in isolation, and I find no reason to disagree.

The main issue is therefore the effect of the proposed side and front extensions on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area, having regard to the [name] (the BE) as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA).

Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires consideration of the effect of the proposed development on the significance of a NDHA, taking a balanced judgement having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

The BE was originally developed under the “Homes for Heroes” house building programme in the 1920s and 30s and was the largest municipal estate in the world at the time. It was almost entirely designed by the architect [name] following the garden city principles of renowned urban planner [name]. Perimeter blocks of symmetrical short terraces and semi-detached dwellings of simple design, wide verges and small incidental open spaces are distinctive features of BE’s urban design and contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area.

No [site address] (No 26) sits on the end of a terrace that is typical of the BE and is an example that has remained largely unchanged in its form, reflecting the 1 Council Ref 25/00579/PRIEXT. significance of the NDHA. The terrace is notably symmetrical with a consistent front building line with no projecting features, and side facing entrances and hipped roofs to both end properties. As well as the front elevation being prominent within the street scene, the side elevation is also highly visible from [address] due to its location adjacent to a corner plot and the separation distance afforded between the terraced rows.

The addition of a front extension, despite extending only approximately 1m from the main elevation of the property in-line with the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2012), would significantly disrupt the symmetry of the terrace given that it is currently devoid of front projections. Furthermore, the extension would stretch across the full width of the building and beyond the existing side elevation, which would create a large wraparound feature that is uncharacteristic of the simpler building forms that are typical of original development on the BE.

Whilst the proposed front and side extensions would be subordinate to their host in terms of height, they would be substantial in footprint when considered together with the proposed rear extension. The extensions would envelope the entire property at ground floor level, diminishing the legibility of the existing built form. In addition, although the proposed flat roof to part of the side extension would be set back behind the hipped roof element and the boundary fence, it would remain visible from the street scene and would be at odds with the prevailing roof design.

It is acknowledged that the scale of the proposed side extension has been reduced from the earlier refused scheme2 and that the materials would be in-keeping with those of the existing property. However, these considerations do not alter my observations and the harm that this proposal would have.

For the above reasons, having regard to the BE as a NDHA, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Consequently, it would be contrary to Policies D4 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies SP2, SPP6, DMD1, DMD4 and DMD5 of the Barking and Dagenham Local Plan (2024). These policies, amongst other things, require all development to integrate with the existing character of the BE and enable the preservation and restoration of its historic fabric.

Whilst the Council agrees that there would be no conflict with policies relating to the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring properties, the absence of harm in this respect does not amount to a benefit that weighs in favour but rather is a neutral matter.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Thus, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.