Appeal 6002946

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. The Council also considers the single storey part of the proposed side extension to be uncontentious. I find no reason to disagree.

The main issue is therefore the effect of the first-floor element of the proposed side extension 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 (the 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” interwar 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 of BE’s urban design and contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area.

No [site address] [site address] (No [site address] ) is a residential property located on the end of a terraced row that sits significantly forward of the adjacent row. Accordingly, much of 1 Council Ref 25/0486/PRIEXT. the dwelling’s relatively simplistic side elevation, which is characteristic of properties across the BE, is visible from [site address] when viewed from the [address] direction. The significant gap at first floor level between No [site address] and its neighbour at No 126 [site address] also contributes to the side elevation’s visibility. The BE is generally associated with hipped roofs. However, No [site address] has been subjected to a roof extension, changing it from a hipped to a gable ended design.

Regardless of it being set back, the first-floor element of the side extension would be particularly visible from the street scene. The proposed multi-level roof arrangement to the side extension would create a busy and complicated appearance that would be out-of-keeping and unsympathetic to the more simplistic original roof designs of the existing property and the BE. Furthermore, although hipped roofs are common throughout the BE, those proposed in this case would be at odds with the existing gable ended roof. Additionally, the introduction of a two-storey side extension would significantly erode the existing gap at first floor level between the rows of terraced properties. Bringing them closer together would diminish the uniformity of the short terraces that are typical of the BE and contribute positively to its character and consistency in built form.

Examples of two storey side extensions exist in the wider area, notably at Nos 67, 92 and 94 [site address] . However, they were approved under an earlier development plan, and there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate they were considered under comparable policies to this proposal, particularly in relation to the effect on the BE as a NDHA.

Although there are inconsistencies between the Council’s officer report and the reason for refusal, this does not alter my observations or the harm I have found.

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 is no determinative 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. Similarly, a lack of objections does not equate to a lack of harm, and the scheme has been determined on its own planning merits.

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.