Appeal 6005380

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed rear dormer extension and single storey rear extension upon the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a significantly extended semi-detached house which already includes a two storey side extension, a first floor gable extension towards the left hand side of the rear elevation, along with a flat roof single storey extension and a large box dormer also to the rear.

The proposal would see an additional flat roof ground floor kitchen extension that would extend 4.5m along the eastern boundary of the site shared with a public footpath that connects [site address] to [address] to the north. It would also give rise to the replacement of the existing first floor gable extension with a wider double gable feature and an extension to the dormer over the aforementioned side extension to the rear, following a hip-to-gable extension.

I note that the Council raise no issue with regard to the first floor aspect of the proposal, but whilst dormer roof extensions are quite clearly visible within the immediate vicinity of the appeal site, they do tend to be sited predominantly on original rear roof slopes as opposed to over side extensions as well.

The visual impacts of the proposal would be such that the existing rear roof plane would be dominated by the dormer roof extension and whilst I acknowledge that the Council raise no objection to the hip-to-gable element of the scheme, nonetheless cumulatively the dormer extension would provide the host dwelling with a top-heavy appearance that would be consumed by extensions. These would be clearly visible from the aforementioned footpath and therefore would be highly visible within the public realm.

I note from the planning history that a single storey extension of 2.5m depth has already been permitted by the Council, however that now before me would add a further 2m to its depth and cumulatively I consider that the existing and proposed extensions would give rise to an overdevelopment of the original house, notwithstanding that there would be ample rear garden space remaining to serve the existing and future occupants of the dwelling. I agree that rear extensions are common within the locality, however this particular proposal would constitute an extension upon an extension and by virtue of the overall depth would fail to appear subordinate in form.

Therefore, whilst I acknowledge that the proposal would provide improve internal living accommodation, I find that the proposal would have a harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the area and would be contrary to Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021 and Policies LP26 and LP30 of the Redbridge Local Plan 2015- 2030 (adopted March 2018) which together require development to respond to existing character and be of high quality design and support householder development that complements the character of the building particularly in terms of scale, requiring schemes to be subordinate to the existing building whilst maintaining or improving the appearance of the locality which I find are conflicted in this case.

Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed.