Appeal 6003713

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; and • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of [address], with regard to outlook, sunlight and daylight.

The appeal site is located within the [name], which is a non-designated heritage asset. The submitted evidence explains that the estate was designed in accordance with Garden City principles, which includes the provision of open green spaces, street trees, green corners and pocket parks. These elements assist in creating a sense of openness within the area and are fundamental to how the estate is experienced.

[address] and surrounding streets, the built form is characterised by small blocks of short, symmetrical terraces and semi-detached housing, constructed using consistent materials and often set within wide verges or fronting small open spaces. This creates a strong sense of rhythm and symmetry across the built form.

The appeal property is a two-storey end of terrace dwelling within a short terrace, which is set back from the public highway behind a landscaped green space containing mature trees. It is constructed in materials, including red brickwork, which match with the surrounding development. As a result of its form, siting and setting, the appeal property makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site occupies a corner plot and benefits from a relatively large side garden area. Adjacent to the site, at right angles, is [address] (No 8), which has a two storey side extension and a single storey front extension. Notwithstanding these additions, No 8 retains a small side garden, ensuring that its side extension is set back from the shared boundary. The orientation of the two dwellings, together with the presence of side gardens within both properties, provides visual relief and contributes to a sense of spaciousness between buildings, despite the relatively tight knit layout of the area.

The side extension has been reduced in size from the previous appeal scheme1 at the site. At first floor level, it would be set back 1 metre from the shared boundary with No 8. However, its footprint would remain significant and, when viewed from the front, the side extension would almost double the width of the host property. The crown roof form, would be significantly lower than the existing ridge line. However, it would feature an area of flat roof, and as there are no other examples of this type of roof form within the immediate area it would represent an uncharacteristic development.

The side extension’s eaves would match with the existing eaves height, whilst the sill levels and window proportions would also be similar to the dwelling’s existing windows. I understand that the facing materials would be selected to match the host dwelling. However, due to the proposal’s size, width and roof form it would not appear subordinate to the host dwelling and would be an ungainly addition to the street scene.

The side extension’s significant projection would considerably enclose the open space to the side of the property adjacent to No 8. This would noticeably reduce the sense of openness between the properties, and from some viewpoints on [address], they would appear to be constructed uncharacteristically close to each other. This would conflict with the established character of this part of the [name], where the spacing between terraces is a defining feature.

The Council’s draft [name] (SPD), provides guidance, amongst other things, for the design of front extensions. Whilst wider than the width suggested by the SPD, the extension would have a similar appearance to the front extension at No 8. Due to its inset from both of the dwelling’s side elevations it would fit comfortably onto the host dwelling, and it would not appear as an overly bulky or disruptive addition.

However, taking the above into account, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policies D4 and HC1 of the London Plan (2021) (LP); Policies SP2, SP6, DMD1, DMD4 and DMD5 of the Barking and Dagenham Local Plan (2024) (Local Plan); and the Council’s Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2012) and the SPD, which taken together, require proposals to respond positively to local character and make a positive architectural and urban design contribution to their context. 1 [name]: APP/Z5060/D/25/3369434

The proposal would also conflict with the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (Framework) which require development to be sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting.

The submitted evidence indicates that No 8 has a south facing ground floor dining room window overlooking the appeal site. The proposal’s first floor element would be set back by 1 metre from the shared boundary. In addition, the appeal site boundary angles away from this window, meaning that, at its widest point, the extension would be further from the window. Given the width of the extension, a substantial proportion of the appeal site, including the area directly in front of the window, would remain free from development.

From views at No 8’s side facing window, a significant part of the side extension would sit within the existing silhouette of the appeal property. The crown roof design would incorporate an expanse of flat roof and would pitch sharply away from No 8, reducing its perceived bulk.

Overall, although the proposal would be more visually apparent than the existing situation, it would not harmfully alter the views from No. 8’s side facing ground floor window in a way that would be overly oppressive or cause significant harm to the occupiers’ outlook.

The additional bulk, located to the south-west of No. 8, would inevitably result in some loss of sunlight and daylight to the neighbouring property. However, this impact would be largely confined to the single south-facing ground floor window, whilst windows on No 8’s front and rear elevations would remain unaffected by the proposal. Overall, the degree of impact arising in this respect would not be unacceptably harmful to the neighbouring occupiers.

For the above reasons, the proposal would not unacceptably harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 8, with particular regard to outlook and sunlight and daylight. Therefore, the proposal would comply with Policy D4 of the LP and Policies SP2, DMD1 and DMD5 of the Local Plan and the SPD which together seek to protect residential amenity.

It would also comply with the principles of the Framework which require developments to create places that are safe, inclusive and accessible and which promote health and well-being, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

The proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. For the above reasons, having had regard to the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, the appeal is dismissed.