Appeal 6004575

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the London Borough of Croydon. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

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

[address] is part of a uniform row of pairs of closely spaced semi-detached, two storey houses. To the rear they have single storey additions resulting in a secondary character to the rear part of these plots. There is therefore a pleasant modest and consistent character to the appeal site and the surroundings.

Beyond this consistent group, close to the junction with [address], 152-158 are larger, taller and wider buildings and planning permission has been granted for two storey outriggers at nos 152 and 154 (LPA ref 18/01664/LP and 08/03129/P). However, their clearly separate appearance means that these properties are visually different from the appeal site. The properties opposite are also modest two storey houses but these form short terraces with different roof forms. They also have original two storey outriggers. However, they do not contribute to the uniformity of the group including no 136, particularly with regard to their rear elevations which are not intervisible from the appeal site.

The proposed development would include a first floor extension clad in tile hanging. It would sit below eaves level and would occupy only part of the width of the building. Nevertheless, it would create a two storey rear addition.

Due to the proposed height and scale this would be a dominant addition which would harmfully and prominently disrupt the uniformity of the terrace and unacceptably undermine the modest secondary character of the rear part of the house. This would harmfully erode these important features of this area and would result in serious harm to the character and appearance of the area. The rear extension would not be visible from [address], however it would be highly visible from surrounding plots as well as from the adjoining retail car park. Therefore, the harm would be experienced.

The Council does not identify harm regarding the ground floor extension or the entrance canopy and I have no reason to disagree with these findings. Albeit, considering the proposed internal reconfiguration, I do not have evidence that they would be physically or functionally severable in this case.

Therefore, the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such it would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan (2021) Policies SP4 and DM10 of the Croydon Local Plan (2018). Together these set criteria to achieve high quality design which respects the surrounding area, local character and responds to the site context.

The appellant suggests that an alternative scheme could be carried out under permitted development which would include a substantial rear dormer and a larger first floor outrigger extension. Given the proximity to the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse I am not presented with detail that justifies that a larger first floor extension would be permitted development in this case. Whilst it may be possible for an addition to the roof to be constructed as permitted development, given the likely internal reconfiguration the evidence does not satisfy me that this would provide the accommodation that is sought. As such there is not a reasonable likelihood of the fallback as described occurring. Consequently, I afford limited weight to this fallback position.

The extension would be energy efficient, although there is little before me to suggest that it would exceed current standards. The proposed development is intended to create an additional accessible ground floor bedroom with ensuite to provide for an occupier who is less mobile and for three generations to live at [address]. This would be an important benefit for these occupiers. However, the development will remain long after these circumstances have changed and there is little before me to suggest that the appeal scheme would be the minimum necessary to meet these needs. Therefore, I am not satisfied that the proposed development would represent the only or least harmful option.

Dismissing the appeal would interfere with the appellant’s private rights to enjoyment of their possessions, to family life and their home and I am mindful of the Human Rights Act 1998. 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.

For the reasons given above, the development would result in permanent harm to the character and appearance of the area and the creation of high quality, buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development 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. Considering the limited weight afforded to the fallback position and limited energy efficiency benefits, these matters would not outweigh the serious harm to character and appearance identified above.

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.