Appeal 6003133

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The Becontree Estate was designed by [name] and built as ‘homes for heroes’ between 1921-1934, following garden city principals. It is characterised by a regular street layout and symmetrical short terraces as well as wide verges, small open spaces, street trees and green corners. The regular appearance and pattern of development and the spacious character make an important contribution to the historic significance of this area. [address] is part of the [name]. It is at the end of a terrace on an outside corner. The plot generally retains its original layout and appearance including the regular scale and fenestration of the house. As well as the open space to the corner which is part of the garden and includes a modest detached garage provides spaciousness and separation from the adjoining terrace. These historic features which are characteristic of the [name] contribute to this house having a limited degree of heritage significance meriting consideration in planning decisions. As such, this property is considered as a non-designated heritage asset.

Numbers 72 and 74 are opposite the appeal site and also positioned on an outside corner at the end of terraces. However, they have two storey side and rear extensions (No 72 - LPA ref 11/00351/FUL), and no 74 also has a single and two storey front extension. The planning officers report states that these do not form a positive precedent. Notwithstanding, large extensions on open corner plots are uncommon in this area and the majority retain their characteristic spaciousness and openness. Therefore, these do not form part of the overriding pattern of development in the area.

The appeal scheme proposes a two storey side extension, level with the front elevation and the ridge height, which would occupy the existing open side garden area. This would alter the frontage of the property to appear wider. The front door would also be relocated to the front elevation and enclosed in a porch.

The proposed addition would introduce a large scale of permanent built development to open garden land. The wide frontage across ground and first floor and the relocated main entrance would undermine the important and regular character to the front elevation of no. 137 and the scale and detailed design would dominate the host property. In addition, the siting and mass would harmfully erode the spacious and open character of the plot and the historic pattern of development in the area. It would be contrary to the advice in the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2012) in this resepct. Taken together, the appeal proposal would therefore lead to clear harm to the character and appearance of the appeal site and the area. It would also unacceptably undermine the historic features of this location. With regard to the non-designated heritage asset, balancing the scale of the harm against its significance, there would also be modest harm in this regard.

Whilst the Council does not identify harm relating to the single storey rear extension in isolation, it does not appear that it would be physically or functionally severable. In addition, I am not satisfied that the extensions proposed could be carried out under permitted development rights. The appeal does not seek permission for a new dwelling and although there is no dispute that the proposed development would not lead to unacceptable living conditions for neighbouring occupiers, the absence of harm in these regards would be a neutral matter.

Consequently, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would be contrary to Policy HC1 of the London Plan (2021) and Policies SPP6, SP2, DMD1, DMD4 and DMD5 of The Barking and Dagenham Local Plan (2024). Together these seek high quality design which relates to local context, including with regard to householder extensions, to preserve the historic significance of heritage assets and require development within the [name] to integrate with the existing character of this area.

The proposed development would provide space for this growing family, for the occupiers to work from home and an elderly family member with health conditions to live at [address]. These would be important benefits to the occupiers.

However, there is little before me to suggest that the large extension proposed to this house would be the only way to meet the particular needs of the appellant’s family. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the proposed development would represent the only or least harmful option to achieve this outcome. Dismissing the appeal would interfere with the appellant’s private rights to enjoyment of their possessions, to family life and their home and the best interests of the child and I am mindful of the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 3(1) of the [name] on the Rights of the Child and the implications of my decision on the best interests of the child or children. I have also had due regard to the protected characteristics in this appeal for the purposes of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, including the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equal opportunity and foster good relations between those with protected characteristics and others. Nevertheless, these factors must be weighed against the wider public interest.

There would be public and permanent harm to character and appearance, including to a non-designated heritage asset and the creation of high quality places is fundamental to what the planning process should achieve. I am satisfied that these legitimate aims can only be adequately safeguarded by the refusal of permission for the development proposed. Consequently, dismissing the appeal for these reasons would be a proportionate and justified outcome.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.