Appeal 6006871

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the partial demolition of existing rear extension, construction of single storey rear extension at [site address] , Newham, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02629/HH and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing Nos: 153-HH-001, 153-HH-009 [name], 153-HH-010 [name], 153-HH- 011 [name],153-HH-013 [name], 153-HH-014 [name] and 153-HH-015 [name].

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The planting set out on plan no. 153-HH-009 [name], shall be completed in the first available planting season following the completion of the development hereby permitted. Any trees, shrubs or plants that die within a period of five years from the completion of the planting, are removed, or become damaged or diseased in that period, shall be replaced in the first available planting season with others of similar size and species.

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

The emerging Newham Local Plan has been examined and a public consultation on the [name] is progressing. Neither party has directed me towards policies within this emerging plan therefore I will determine the appeal scheme against relevant policies within the adopted development plan, which consists of the London Plan (March 2021) and Newham Local Plan (December 2018).

During the planning application process the Council received a set of amended plans which reduced the depth of the single storey rear extension. This appeal decision is based on the amended plans.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including Woodgrange Estate Conservation Area (WCA).

The appeal site is located within the WCA. Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA) requires special attention to be paid to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. In addition, the National Planning Policy Framework requires great weight to be given to the conservation of heritage assets.

The conservation area encompasses a series of residential streets that run parallel to each other south of [name] in [name]. The conservation area has an entirely urban setting surrounded by later Victorian development and post war redevelopment. The WCA Design Guide (October 2022) explains the [name] was built as a smart middle class Victorian suburb between 1877 and 1892. There are 3 distinct character areas within the conservation area which are defined as (i) grid pattern of suburban housing, (ii) [address] and (iii) [address]. The appeal property falls within (i) which is characterised by a consistent linear development of terraced or linked two storey brick houses with streets retaining a relatively quiet, spacious and leafy quality. The significance of the conservation area, insofar as it relates to this appeal, derives from the consistency of buildings both in terms of their scale, detailed design, materials and building lines.

The application site comprises a four-bedroom, linked two-storey dwelling located on the southern side of [address]. The property has an attractive frontage maintaining many of its original features including large sash windows and ornate pillars either side of the front door.

In contrast the rear of the appeal property and neighbouring dwellings have fewer decorative features. A variety of different extensions are visible from the rear of the property which vary in form and scale. There are also examples of outbuildings of a notable size.

The appeal scheme proposes the partial demolition of an existing single storey rear extension. The existing extension utilises UPVC windows and is finished in a grey render. This rendered finish is utilised across the full extent of the rear elevation at ground floor level providing a stark contrast to an otherwise attractive dwelling. The existing extension doesn’t complement the attractive brick-built dwelling, and no harm therefore arises from the partial demolition of this extension.

The proposed extension would not have a greater depth than the existing rear extension, although it is accepted that it would have a greater footprint as it would extend across the full width of the property. Consistent with the advice in the Altering and Extending your [name] (February 2018) the scheme seeks to replicate the style, design and detailing of the original house and reinstate architectural details by using matching materials and brick detailing around the windows reflective of the host dwelling. This is a notable improvement over the current appearance of the rear elevation.

Whilst the proposed extension is of a reasonable size it would not dominate the host dwelling given the substantial scale of the Victorian property. The proposed parapet wall would obscure only a very limited section of the window serving the landing ensuring that much of this window can still be viewed. Furthermore, the extension would not appear appreciably larger than those on surrounding properties that were visible on my site visit so would not appear incongruous in this context.

It is accepted that the proposal would not entirely conform with the guidance in the [name] as the depth of the extension would exceed the recommended size limit by 0.9m. However, matching brickwork would be utilised, the windows would be timber framed and a green roof is also proposed. Given the current condition and finish of the existing rear extension the replacement would be an enhancement. Furthermore, the scheme also includes the replacement of a first floor door with a sash window which would be sympathetic to the characteristics of the conservation area. The rear garden area would be reconfigured, with extended raised beds adjacent to the site boundaries and new planting proposed.

The Council has responded to the example decisions provided by the appellant, and I acknowledge that many of these extensions were granted some time ago. However, for the reasons I have set out the proliferation of single storey rear extensions and the sympathetic design of the proposal, the development would not alter the consistency found within the conservation area which is one of its key characteristics.

Overall, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the WCA would be preserved. The proposal would therefore meet the requirements of the LBCA and accords with Policies D1, D4, and HC1 of the London Plan and Policies SP1, SP3 and SP5 of the Newham Local Plan. Amongst other matters, these policies seek to maintain design quality that enhances the positive elements and distinctive features of the Borough and conserve and enhance designated heritage assets.

In addition to the standard time condition, I have imposed a condition to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. A matching materials condition is required to ensure that the character and appearance of the area is maintained. A condition is also attached to ensure that the soft landscaping improvements are implemented to preserve the character and appearance of the WCA.

I conclude that the proposal would be in accordance with the development plan and there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is allowed.