Appeal 6008203

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for first floor extension with pitched roof at [site address] East, Plaistow, Newham, London [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02720/HH, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos A00 rev A, A02, [name], A03 [name], A05 [name], A07 [name], B01 [name].

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

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

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The Council’s delegated report refers to the Draft Newham Local Plan however I have not been provided with the emerging policies. I have therefore determined this appeal with reference to the policies in the Newham Local Plan (2018).

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance on the host property and surrounding area.

The appeal site sits within a row of modest two-storey terraced housing with rear elevations facing towards the rear of [address]. Alterations are present in the form of rear roof dormer additions, however there are no examples of first-floor extensions above the ground floor projections along [address]. These rear projections are typically characterised by pitched roofs, although the appeal property differs in this respect as it features a flat-roofed ground floor projection. Whilst first floor additions above these rear projections are not evident within [address] itself, the properties to the rear along [address] have been designed with two-storey rear projections, with this form therefore present in the wider context of [address].

The design and massing of the proposed first-floor extension would sit comfortably within the form of the existing building. Its proportions, by way of its width and set back from the ground floor rear elevation and boundary with No 103, would ensure the massing remains proportionate and clearly subordinate to the host property. The introduction of a pitched roof would reflect the original form of the host property, representing an improvement over the existing flat-roofed ground floor projection and aligning more closely with the prevailing roof forms of the terrace and surrounding area. As such, the proposed first floor extension would therefore be an appropriately designed and subordinate addition that would not harm the character or appearance of the host property.

Whilst the proposed first floor extension would introduce a new form of first-floor development within the terrace of [address], it would not appear incongruous when considered in the context of the wider area. The presence of dormer extensions along [address] demonstrate that vertical additions are an established feature of the terrace, whilst the two-storey rear projections along [address] indicate that two-storey rear forms are a common characteristic of the surrounding area. Furthermore, the position to the rear of the host property would limit its visibility from public vantage points within the street scene. In this context, the proposal would not appear visually discordant or unduly prominent within the street scene and would represent a sympathetic and acceptable addition that would not have an unduly harmful result on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

For the reasons above, the proposal is therefore in accordance with Policies SP1 and SP3 of the Newham Local Plan 2018, the London Plan (March 2021), National Planning Policy Framework (December 2024) and the guidance contained within the Altering and Extending Your Home Supplementary Planning Document (February 2018) which, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development realises a high quality of urban design that respects the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.

The proposal would extend along the boundary with [address] however it is not considered that this would introduce a harmful sense of enclosure, loss of outlook or loss of light to the habitable rooms of the neighbouring property, nor a significant impact on existing damp levels. A sufficient set back from the boundary to No 103 is also retained as to prevent harmful impacts to the living conditions of the occupiers. No side windows are proposed within the design, mitigating loss of privacy to the occupiers of the neighbouring properties. The proposal therefore would not result in harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and therefore does not justify dismissing the appeal.

Time limit and plans conditions are necessary in the interests of certainty. A condition for matching materials is also necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.