Appeal 6004097

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey side extension and extension to detached store at 9 and [address], Romford [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P0713.25, subject to the following condition:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: 9580/2 A

This appeal relates to development that has already been carried out. As the application is retrospective, I have considered the submission accordingly.

As the description of development varies between documents submitted, I have used that from the Council’s decision notice, as this has also been used by the appellant for their statement.

The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the appeal building and that of the local area.

The appeal building is a two storey detached building with a gable end to the street frontage. At ground level there is a commercial use, with a residential use at first floor level. It is located within a small local centre within a predominantly residential area. The centre has shops and other commercial uses that are concentrated on one side of the street, towards its junction with [address].

The appeal building is located where the street rises up to [address] and sits between two other buildings in the local centre, with both having commercial uses at ground floor level with residential above. On the uphill side of the appeal building is a 3 storey building and the appeal extension sits between the two, infilling what was previously a substantial gap between the two buildings. On the other side of the appeal building there is a slightly narrower gap between it and the neighbouring property.

Within the local centre the properties are a mixture of detached, semi-detached and larger single mixed-use properties. Within the area, the residential properties vary between two storey detached and semi-detached houses, and larger 3 storey flatted developments with flat roofs. This results in a mixed streetscape, made up of a variety of building ages, styles, roof forms, with a variety of size of gaps between, and with stepped and non-aligned street frontages. This presents a streetscape with little visual cohesion.

At ground floor level the extension aligns with the front elevation of the original building. This results in it being set forward by approximately 1.3 metres from the front of the neighbouring 3 storey building to which it connects. At ground level the appeal extension provides additional space for the commercial use at ground floor level, indicated as being a garage and storage area, which connects with the original detached store to the rear. At first floor the extension is set back from the front of the original building by approximately 1 metre and provides for an additional bedroom for the flat, with glazed doors and a balcony to the front. The appeal extension has a flat roof with a projecting canopy, which connects into the original roof just above eaves level, but is set back slightly from the gable end.

The mixture of types of buildings, including terraced properties, larger purpose-built flatted developments and detached buildings in the local area, with a wide variety of gaps and spaces between unaligned properties does not result in a defined spatial characteristic of the local area. The appeal extension infilling entirely does not therefore appear to interrupt a regularity in the street frontage or to detract from the spatial characteristic of the local area.

The positioning of the extension reflects the stepped and unaligned street frontages of the street and the setting back of the first floor mediates acceptably between the appeal building and the set-back flatted development to which it is attached. The flat roof of the proposal also reflects the mixture of roof types in the immediate area, including the flatted development to which it is attached. In combination with the scale of the extension and its first floor set back, this results in the extension appearing as a subordinate and secondary addition to the appeal building, and as a recessive and complementary element within the street frontage. With the diverse architectural styles and ages of properties found along the street and in the surrounding area, including first-floor balconies facing onto the street on homes near the local centre, the addition of a first-floor balcony to the extension seems to complement the variety of the streetscape and reflect local design exemplars.

A third party has raised concerns with regard to the effect of the appeal extension on availability of on street parking and noise nuisance. From my site visit it was apparent that on street parking provision in the area was a mixture of resident only permit parking and time restricted parking for other users, with variations in times of restrictions for differing parts of the street. Parking availability did not appear to be an issue, reflecting a usual pattern for outer parts of London and local centres. The appeal extension does not have any significant impact on this level of parking availability. The extension enlarges existing uses and does not represent a greater risk of noise nuisance than existing. Any noise associated with the balcony would be subject to the usual noise controls operated by the Council under separate legislation. As such the appeal extension does not result in any significant harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residential occupiers through noise nuisance.

For the reasons given above, I find that the appeal extension does not result in any significant harm to the character and appearance of the appeal building or that of the local area. As such, it is not in conflict with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan, which seeks development that contributes to the creation of successful places, respects the qualities, identity and character of their site and local area, including local patterns of development and respects local streetscene, and is of high design quality.

As the proposed development has already been completed, I have not included a condition relating to the timing of implementation. In the interests of good design, I have attached a condition requiring compliance with approved plans.

The appeal is allowed.