Appeal 6004519

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area, including on the Mark Hall North Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal property is situated within the CA. In accordance with the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The special interest of the CA primarily derives from the overall planned layout and townscape of the neighbourhood. Properties fall into distinct styles, which shows both consistency in the clusters of the same styled properties, and a recognisable variation between the style types across the entire CA.

The evidence shows the appeal property is a [name] house, set in a group of other [name] properties. These houses have a number of unifying features including, their appearance as pairs of semi-detached properties set back from the road. The facades of the buildings feature brick and render, with the entrance of one property set on the primary elevation and the other on the side, with these side entrances often featuring an open porch. The group of [name] properties the appeal site is set within notably retain flat front building lines presenting a uniform row of semi-detached properties set in a staggered arrangement. The appeal property demonstrates these features and therefore positively contributes to the CA as part of this cluster of [name] properties.

The proposal would introduce an enclosed porch to the front of the property. The materials would match the host property and the porch would have a modest footprint. Nevertheless, the porch would have a notably tall ridge, set just below the first floor windows and the proposal would introduce prominent bulk and massing to the front of the property, breaching the front building line. This would disrupt the coherent and regular appearance of the front facades of this cluster of [name] properties. As a result, the proposal would appear incongruous and detrimentally prominent within the streetscene and cluster of [name] properties.

The appeal proposal would therefore result in considerable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and area. It would therefore neither preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. In the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the level of harm identified is less than substantial and lies within the middle of the spectrum due to the domestic scale of the proposal. This is a matter which I attach considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework states when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposed porch would improve the functionality and overall usability of the property, along with providing minor thermal buffering. The improvement of a private dwelling within the existing housing stock carries limited weight as a public benefit. As such, the public benefits do not outweigh the harm caused to, and the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The development therefore conflicts with Policies PL1, PL12 and WE5 of the Harlow Local Development Plan (2020). These policies, amongst other matters, seek to ensure that proposals are of a high standard of architectural design that protects local distinctiveness, along with ensuring that conservation areas are conserved or enhanced.

A number of porch extensions have been brought to my attention throughout the CA1 as well as a planning permission2 granted by the Council for a front porch. Most of these examples do not relate to [name] houses and are therefore not directly comparable to the appeal property and the effect the proposal has on the CA. In addition, the majority of the [name] properties highlighted are situated away from the cluster the appeal proposal would be seen within and as such, the streetscene context of these examples is different to that of the appeal proposal. In relation to the [name] properties situated close to the appeal property, Nos 18, 20 and 22, the porches on these dwellings are open side porches which are therefore not comparable to the appeal proposal.

As referred to, the benefits of the proposal would amount to the improvement of the living conditions of the occupiers of the appeal property. However, given the small scale of the proposal this carries limited weight in favour of the development, which would be insufficient to outweigh the harms that I have identified. 1 As shown on Figure 1 [name] – [name] of Case 2 LPA ref HSE/23/00256 at No 75

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.