Appeal 6005513

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling, its semi-detached pair and that of the local area.

The appeal dwelling is a two storey semi-detached house located at the corner of [address] and [address]. It has a hard paved front garden to provide off street parking and a relatively small rear garden that narrows towards its rearmost part. It is located in a predominantly residential area that is made up of detached and terraced houses of a design and scale similar to that of the appeal dwelling and its semi-detached pair. Whilst many of these have undergone a variety of extension and/or alteration, the streetscene of the area presents as harmonious in scale and design and generally well maintained.

Prior to the erection of the two storey side extension that forms the basis of this appeal, it had been the subject of a lawful permitted development to change from a hipped roof to a gable end, with the erection of a rear dormer roof extension. A separate planning permission1 has also been given for a proposed two storey side extension that required the demolition a single detached side garage. However, the 1 Planning Ref: 240634 side extension as built does not follow the approved plans for that permission. The appellant sought to regularise this situation by the submission of an application for the extension as built, which was subsequently refused.

The two storey side extension differs as built from the approved proposal for a two storey side extension. It is wider and approximately 0.4 metres closer to the boundary with the neighbouring property fronting [address], does not step down as significantly from the original roof ridge and is not set back at all from the front elevation of the original house at first floor level. The full height opening doors and Juliette balcony to the front of the extension were also not part of the approved proposal. I note from my site visit that the Juliette balcony remains unimplemented.

The width, lack of set back of the original front elevation at first floor level and limited set down of the roof from the original, results in the two storey side extension appearing as bulky in relation to the appeal dwelling and not as a recessive and subordinate addition. When seen in combination with the dormer in the rear roof slope, the extension as built appears to significantly dominate and visually unbalance the appeal dwelling.

This is particularly the case in street views, especially those from [address]. In these views the bulk and un-recessive massing of the two storey side extension also appears to imbalance the relationship between the appeal dwelling and its semi-detached pair.

For these reasons, the two storey side extension does not accord with the design guidance set out for such extensions in the [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2010), which seeks side extensions that are set back from the front line of the host and appear subordinate to the original house.

This dominating and incongruous effect is further exacerbated by the use of bricks for the two storey side extension that do not closely match with the existing bricks of the appeal dwelling. Rather, they appear to noticeably and incongruously contrast with the existing. The full height doors and proposed but unimplemented Juliette balcony will in combination contrast and conflict with the fenestration of the front of the original house and to appear as incongruous in relation to the design of the other frontages of houses in the street and local area, where first floor doors and Juliette balconies are not part of the established streetscene.

As such, the two storey side extension detracts from the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling, its semi-detached pair and that of the local area. This contrasts with the design for the approved proposal for a two storey side extension, which would appear as more recessively massed and subordinate to the appeal dwelling, and would result in no harm to its character and appearance, or to the character and appearance of the semi-detached pair and that of the local area.

For the reasons set out above, the development of the two storey side extension results in substantial harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling, its semi-detached pair and that of the local area. This conflicts with Policy 53 of the of the Waltham Forest Local Plan - LP1 (2024). This seeks development, including by extension, that is of high quality design, responds appropriately to context and takes into account local character and distinctiveness.

The appeal is dismissed.