Appeal 6006120

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and its semi-detached pair and that of the local area, with reference to the [name].

The appeal dwelling is a two storey semi-detached house located on a corner plot at the junction of [address] with [address]. It was a wraparound front and side garden given over mostly to hard standing. The front elevation aligns with the street frontage of the adjacent terraced houses that form the frontage onto [address], whilst the flank aligns with the front elevation of the neighbouring terraced houses that front [address].

The appeal dwelling falls within the boundary of the [name], an interwar planned estate as ‘Home for Heroes’ that follows the design principles of the Garden City movement. The estate is made up of semi-detached and terraced houses, similar in design and scale to the appeal dwelling. The unified design of the houses and layout of the estate are recognised as significant features, which create a harmonious and spacious streetscape.

For these reasons the estate is recognised by the Council as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA), as defined by the provisions of the PPG. Accordingly, I have considered the effect of the proposal in line with paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework).

The proposal is for a two storey side extension that would extend the front elevation of the appeal dwelling by over half and would be to the full width of the flank elevation. The roof of the proposal would extend and replicate the existing hipped roof form. The bulk and scale of the proposal would significantly increase the size of the appeal dwelling and would appear as a visually dominating addition. It would also result in a loss of symmetry, and in the appeal dwelling being out of balance and incongruous in relation to its semi-detached pair, whilst infilling an open corner on the street. This would not accord with the design guidance for such extensions set out in the Council’s adopted [name] and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (2012), which advises that extensions should reflect the type of house in terms of their form, and detailing and not compromise the openness of corner plots.

Whilst it is the stated intention of the appellant to match the general design and materials of the appeal dwelling, the resulting extra width of the proposal would result in the appeal dwelling appearing incongruous in relation to the standard width of houses in the estate, which contributes significantly to the estate’s visual uniformity and harmonious streetscape. This incongruous appearance would be further compounded by the proposed window arrangement of the proposal, which fails to reflect the size, layout and alignment of the existing windows that reflects that of its semi-detached pair and houses in the estate generally.

The position of the proposal would also result in the appeal dwelling stepping forward from the uniform building line of [address] and would also infill an existing open area at this prominent corner. This would detract from the uniform and harmonious alignment of the streetscape and the spatial characteristics of the street and the planned layout of the estate. This would be detrimental to the established character and appearance of the estate and its significance as an NDHA.

The appellant has drawn my attention to there being other side extension to properties in the local area, however, these are not identified by address and no planning information related to individual cases has been provided to me. Where these exist and have a planning permission, they would have been considered on their own merits at the time of their approval, in accordance with then planning practice and policy, which does develop over time. I have likewise considered the appeal proposal on its own merits, which is a main tenet of the planning system. I have therefore only afforded the existence of extensions to other properties in the local area only limited weight in my considerations.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling in combination with its semi-detached pair, as well as that of the local area, failing to conserve the significance of the [name] an NDHA. This would be contrary to Policies SPP6, SP2, DMD1, DMD4 and DMD5 of the Barking and Dagenham Local Plan (2024). Collectively these seek development that is of high quality design, is sympathetic and subordinate to the design of the original dwelling, relate to their local area, sustains the significance of the Borough’s historic environment and integrates with the existing character of the [name].

I find that the harm to the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling in combination with its semi-detached pair and that of the local area would be substantial, although the harm to the significance of the [name] as an NDHA would be less than substantial. In accordance with the Framework, great weight should be given to the conservation assets. The proposal would increase the living space of the appeal dwelling, which is primarily a private benefit in this instance and no substantive public benefits have been brought to my attention. I must give considerable importance and weight to the effect on the significance of the estate as an NDHA. I consider that these benefits do not outweigh the harm I have identified.

For the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.